Final report - European Commission...entered the EU at 1 July 2013) HCV Heavy Commercial Vehicles covering HGVs and buses as laid down in the Speed Limitation Directive. Refers to

The information and views set out in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of

the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the

Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of

the information contained therein.

Final report

Evaluation study on Speed Limitation Devices

SPECIFIC CONTRACT

MOVE/A3/350-2010 IMPACT ASSESSMENTS AND

EVALUATIONS (EX-ANTE, INTERMEDIATE AND EX-POST) IN

THE FIELD OF THE TRANSPORT

Ex-post evaluation of Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation

and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of

motor vehicles in the Community, as amended by Directive

2002/85/EC

European Commission

Directorate-general for Mobility and Transport

DM28 – 0/100 – Archives

1049 Brussels

Date: 9 August 2013

Transport & Mobility Leuven

Diestsesteenweg 57

3010 Leuven - Belgium

http://www.tmleuven.be

Ex-post evaluation on the installation and use of speed limitation devices 2

Contents

Contents ............................................................................................................................................................... 2

Glossary ................................................................................................................................................................ 6

Summary............................................................................................................................................................... 8

Résumé .............................................................................................................................................................. 11

Zusammenfassung ........................................................................................................................................... 15

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 19

1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 19

1.2 Aim and scope of the study .................................................................................................. 19

1.3 Structure of the report ........................................................................................................... 21

2 Methodology for the evaluation ........................................................................................................... 22

2.1 Introduction and overall approach ...................................................................................... 22

2.2 Previous assessments: literature review ............................................................................... 23

2.3 Survey, interviews and stakeholder workshop ................................................................... 28

2.4 General assumptions and data used ..................................................................................... 30

2.5 Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) ....................................................................................... 33

2.6 Speed impacts .......................................................................................................................... 41

2.7 Safety impacts .......................................................................................................................... 49

2.8 Impacts on emissions and fuel consumption ..................................................................... 58

2.9 Market impacts ........................................................................................................................ 61

2.10 Coverage of evaluation questions......................................................................................... 64

3 Member States Survey and stakeholder workshop ........................................................................... 65

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 65

3.2 Questionnaire responses ........................................................................................................ 65

3.3 Implementation of the Speed Limitation Directive .......................................................... 67

3.4 Impacts of the Speed Limitation Directive ........................................................................ 69

3.5 Availability of quantitative data ............................................................................................ 73


3.6 Possible amendments to the Speed Limitation Directive ................................................ 73

3.7 Stakeholders’ workshop ......................................................................................................... 76

3.8 Main findings ........................................................................................................................... 77

4 Ex-post evaluation HCVs ..................................................................................................................... 78

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 78

4.2 Impacts on speed .................................................................................................................... 78

4.3 Impacts on safety .................................................................................................................... 81

4.4 Impacts on emissions ............................................................................................................. 85

4.5 Market impacts ........................................................................................................................ 87

4.6 Main findings ........................................................................................................................... 89

5 Ex-ante evaluation for HCVs ............................................................................................................... 91

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 91

5.2 Scenario definition .................................................................................................................. 91

5.3 Impacts on speed .................................................................................................................... 93

5.4 Impacts on safety .................................................................................................................... 94

5.5 Impacts on emissions ........................................................................................................... 101

5.6 Market impacts ...................................................................................................................... 106

5.7 Main findings ......................................................................................................................... 108

6 Ex-ante evaluation for LCVs .............................................................................................................. 110

6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 110

6.2 Inclusion of M1 vehicles...................................................................................................... 110

6.3 Scenario definition ................................................................................................................ 110

6.4 Impacts on speeds ................................................................................................................ 112

6.5 Impacts on safety .................................................................................................................. 113

6.6 Impacts on emissions ........................................................................................................... 117

6.7 Market impacts ...................................................................................................................... 121

6.8 Main findings ......................................................................................................................... 123

7 Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................................................. 125


7.1 Conclusions on the ex-post evaluation ............................................................................. 125

7.2 Conclusions on the ex-ante evaluations ............................................................................ 126

7.3 Answers to the evaluation questions ................................................................................. 128

7.4 Policy discussion and conclusions ..................................................................................... 129

7.5 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 130

Annexes ........................................................................................................................................................... 132

ANNEX 1: Member State questionnaire QUESTIONNAIRE on the implementation of directive

92/6/EEC, as amended by directive 2002/85/ec, on speed limitation devices and relevant effects.133

QUESTIONNAIRE Notes ............................................................................................................... 135

SECTION 1: IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 2002/85/EC AMENDING

DIRECTIVE 96/6/EEC ................................................................................................................... 136

SECTION 2: IMPACTS OF THE DIRECTIVE 2002/85/EC ............................................. 140

SECTION 3: QUANTITATIVE DATA .................................................................................... 145

SECTION 4: OPTIONS FOR AMENDING DIRECTIVE 2002/85/EC ......................... 149

ANNEX 2: Stakeholder/expert questionnaire ......................................................................................... 151

QUESTIONNAIRE Notes ............................................................................................................... 153

SECTION 1: IMPACTS OF THE DIRECTIVE 2002/85/EC ............................................. 154

SECTION 2: QUANTITATIVE DATA .................................................................................... 157

SECTION 3: OPTIONS FOR AMENDING DIRECTIVE 2002/85/EC ......................... 159

ANNEX 3: Posted Speed limits on different types of roads for different types of vehicles in EU

Member States ................................................................................................................................................ 162

ANNEX 4: Trends of vehicle stock ........................................................................................................... 163

ANNEX 5: Stakeholders workshop participants ..................................................................................... 173

ANNEX 6: List of ministries/competent offices, experts and stakeholders contacted .................... 174

ANNEX 7: Implementation of the speed limitation directive and enforcement of checks ............. 182

ANNEX 8: Studies on speed limitation devices and relevant impacts suggested by governmental

contacts and stakeholders ............................................................................................................................. 185

ANNEX 9: National policies/measures with significant impacts on emissions and road safety ..... 191

ANNEX 10: Availability of quantitative data ........................................................................................... 194

ANNEX 11: Time series analysis: technical approach and results for the Individual countries ...... 197


Results for EU15 composite .............................................................................................................. 197

Results for the individual countries ................................................................................................... 202

ANNEX 12: Methodology for road safety calculations .......................................................................... 278

Literature and selection of approach ................................................................................................. 278

Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 285

ANNEX 13: Speed profiles for emission analysis ................................................................................... 290

ANNEX 14: Classification speed limits per country ............................................................................... 321

ANNEX 15: Emission models used........................................................................................................... 322

ANNEX 16: Real life distributions ............................................................................................................. 328


Glossary

Average speed This is the average speed of the traffic flow or an individual

Bus M2 and M3 vehicles. In this report the term ‘buses’ refers to both

buses and coaches.

EU15 Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Spain, France, Italy,

Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal,

Finland, Sweden, UK

EU19 Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Greece,

Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Poland,

Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Finland, Sweden and United

Kingdom

EU24 EU-19 + Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Malta and Slovakia

EU27 27 EU Member States at 1 January 2013 (without Croatia that

entered the EU at 1 July 2013)

HCV Heavy Commercial Vehicles covering HGVs and buses as laid

down in the Speed Limitation Directive. Refers to vehicle

categories N2/N3 and M2/M3

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle, refers to vehicle categories N2 and N3

ISA Intelligent Speed Assistance/Adaptation

LCV Light Commercial Vehicle, refers to the vehicle category N1 and

M1 that are commercially used

LGV Light Goods Vehicle, refers to vehicle category N1

M1 vehicle A vehicle designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers

and comprising no more than eight seats in addition to the

driver's seat

M2 vehicle A vehicle designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers,

comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat,

and having a maximum mass not exceeding 5 tonnes.

M3 vehicle A vehicle designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers,

comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat,

and having a maximum mass exceeding 5 tonnes.

N1 vehicle A vehicle designed and constructed for the carriage of goods and

having a maximum mass not exceeding 3.5 tonnes.



having a maximum mass exceeding 3.5 tonnes but not exceeding

12 tonnes.


having a maximum mass exceeding 12 tonnes.

Posted speed limit The speed limit for a road as posted on the traffic signs. These

limits differ per Member State and road type.

Speed limiter On-board device that automatically limits the speed of a vehicle

to a certain maximum speed as set in the device

Speed limitation device Same as Speed limiter

Speed Limitation Directive Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use of speed

limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the

Community, as amended by Directive 2002/85/EC

Speed deviation Statistical measure for the speed dispersion (standard deviation of

speed)

Speed dispersion Measure for the differences in speeds between individual vehicles

that are part of the traffic flow or the variation in speeds for all

vehicles over a road segment

Speed distribution The arrangement of speeds driven according to their frequency of

occurrence on the road

Speed profile The variation in speed over time of a specific vehicle

Time series A sequence of data points, measured typically at successive times,

spaced at (often uniform) time intervals.

Time series analysis A method that attempt to understand time series, often either to

understand the underlying context of the data points (Where did

they come from? What generated them?), or to make forecasts

(predictions). A time series analysis can be used to recognize

specific trend breaking points in (the values of) a dependent

variable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forecast


Summary

Context, objective and methodology

The installation of speed limiters and Intelligent Speed Adaption Systems (ISA) is believed to be an

effective way to improve road safety and to reduce emissions and traffic noise. It addresses

specifically unadapted driving speed, which is one of the main causes of traffic accidents,

particularly on motorways. Speed policies can be regarded as being complementary to other policies

that affect other causes of accidents or emissions, such as vehicle and energy technology, alcohol

use or unsafe infrastructure.

Directive 92/6/EEC required speed limitation devices to be installed on large Heavy Goods

Vehicles HGVs and buses (N3 and M3 vehicles). In 2002, this "Speed Limitation Directive" was

amended by Directive 2002/85/EC, which obliged all Heavy Commercial Vehicles (HCVs), so also

N2 and M2 vehicles, to be equipped with speed limiters. Directive 2002/85/EC requires the

Commission to evaluate its road safety and traffic impacts. In this context, the European

Commission commissioned Transport and Mobility Leuven, CE Delft, TRT and TNO to carry out

this evaluation study.

Speed limiters and ISA can contribute to key policy objectives of the 2011 White Paper on

Transport, in particular moving closer to zero fatalities in road transport in 2050 and reducing

GHG emissions in 2050 by 60% compared to 1990 level. Speed policy can be regarded as

necessary, but on its own not sufficient for meeting these targets. The main argument for the EU

to keep playing a role in speed policy appears to be to ensure a level playing field for all

commercially used vehicles across Member States.

The overall objective of this study is to assist the European Commission with the ex-post

evaluation of the "Speed Limitation Directive" and to explore and assess options for revising the

Directive (ex-ante evaluation). These options include changing the maximum speed applied for

HCVs, extending the scope of the Directive to Light Commercial Vehicles (LCVs, including Light

Goods Vehicles and small buses, respectively N1 and M1 vehicles) and/or introducing

requirements for the installation of various types of ISA. The analysis builds on a literature review,

a survey among stakeholders and Member States, interviews, a stakeholder workshop and extensive

data analysis and modelling.

Ex-post evaluation

According to the survey carried out in this project, no particular problems have been encountered

in the implementation of the Speed Limitation Directive with few exceptions related to

administrative and technical costs. All Member States that replied to the questionnaire (63% of all

EU Member States) applied the maximum speeds set out in the Directive and regularly check the

vehicles' compliance. In most cases this is done during roadside inspections and/or during yearly

roadworthiness tests.

The impacts of the Directive on actual vehicle speeds are hard to estimate due to data limitations.

When comparing the scarcely available historical data on traffic speeds, no clear effect of the

Directive on the speed distribution could be found. The statistical analysis of the evolution of the

accident risk of HCVs gave no clear evidence of the impact of the Directive on traffic safety,


mainly due to data limitations. However, the speed distribution without speed limiters of 10 years

ago might not be representative for a situation today without speed limiters.

Therefore a second approach was applied, based on relationships between the speed distributions

and accident rates and the impact of speed limiters on the speed distributions. Hence, based on real

data, more theoretical speed distributions were assumed as well as the effect of speed limiters on

these distributions. Using these speed distributions with and without speed limiters, the impacts on

safety and emissions were calculated. This analysis showed that the Directive had a positive impact

on traffic safety. Overall the impacts are estimated to be a reduction of 9% of fatal accidents on

motorways with HCVs involved, 4% of serious injuries and 3% of injury accidents. The total

reduction in the number of annual fatalities due to the Speed Limitation Directive is estimated at

about 50 a year. These results should be regarded as indicative. Unfortunately, data is lacking to

distinguish the road safety impacts of introducing speed limitation devices specifically in vehicle

categories N2 and M2.

The effects on emissions were estimated by comparing speed profiles. This analysis showed that for

the EU as a whole the introduction of speed limiters resulted in a reduction of the total CO2, NOx

and PM emissions of HCVs of about 1%.

The evaluation of the market impacts focused on the possible impacts on a shift between HCVs

and LCVs, the transportation costs, vehicle design and enforcement and fraud. For none of these

impacts clear evidence of problems were found. With respect to shifts towards LCVs, some

countries did see this shift, but this could also be caused by other regulations and other influences.

Fraud was not seen as a problem by the interviewees, but did come up as a problem in the literature

from outside the EU.

Ex-ante evaluations

Four scenarios for HCVs were evaluated and four for LCVs. Unfortunately, data is lacking to

evaluate the impacts of extending the scope of the Directive to commercially used M1-vehicles.

Therefore, the LCV scenarios were limited to LGVs (N1 vehicles). The results for N1 vehicles can

however be expected to be representative for commercially used M1 vehicles, given that the

parameters determining the safety and emission impacts are largely the same.

The analysis shows that overall the ISA scenarios have the highest reductions on road safety for

both HCVs and LCVs, in particular when the system is not just informative but also gives active

feedback (Voluntary ISA). For both HCVs and LCVs the scenario with such an ISA system shows

a reduction in the number of accidents in the EU with HCVs/LGVs involved of about 25% for

fatal accidents, 18-19% for seriously injury accidents and 11% for all injury accidents. This

corresponds to a reduction in the number of fatalities per year of about respectively 150 (ISA for

HCVs) and 600 (ISA for LCVs).

Decreasing the speed limits to 80 and 90 km/h for HGVs and buses, respectively, leads to a

decrease in fatal accidents with HCVs involved of about 5%. A similar reduction percentage was

found for the scenario with speed limiters for LGVs set at 100 km/h. These rates are lower than

for the ISA scenarios because speed limiters do only affect motorway traffic and rural roads with

relatively high posted speed limits; ISA systems have an impact on safety on all roads. Because the

absolute number of accidents is larger for these road types, ISA systems have a larger overall effect

on road safety. It should be noticed, however, that speed limiters are an effective way to improve

traffic safety on motorways: it allows for 16% to 28% reduction of fatal accidents with LGVs

involved (corresponding to 40 to 70 fatal accidents a year).


The emission impacts are rather different from the safety impacts: the speed limiters can have a

high impact on emissions, especially on motorways, while the effect of ISA is in most cases close to

zero. The highest emission reductions for the HCVs are found when the speed set with the speed

limiters is lowered to 80 and 90 km/h for HGVs and buses, respectively. In that case both pollutant

and CO2 emissions decrease with approximately 4% to 6% of the emissions by HCVs on non-

urban roads in the EU27 (corresponding to a reduction of about 9 Mt of CO2). For LCVs, the

highest emission reductions are found for the scenario with a speed limit set at 100 km/h with

emission reductions on all non-urban roads of about 4-5% for CO2 (about 2 Mt of CO2) and PM

emissions and even 14% for NOx. With a speed limiter set at 110 km/h, emissions reductions are

less than half as high.

The extension of speed limiters to LGVs is generally seen as a way to reduce vehicle operating and

maintenance costs. In combination with the CO2 emission limits for LCVs it could also lead to

engine power downsizing resulting in additional CO2 reduction. Concerning compliance costs, the

Directive extension would imply measures for the retrofitting of the existing fleet and ad-hoc

enforcement policies will have to be applied in order to avoid frauds and illegal behaviours.

Further decreasing the speed for HCVs can be expected to result into a shift towards the less

restricted LCVs and possibly lead to a positive effect with respect to the operating costs. The LCV

scenarios with speed limiters are considered by some stakeholders and operators as a step towards a

more levelled playing field in road transport. However, speed is not the only factor influencing the

choice of the commercial vehicle size. When just N1-vehciles would be included, there might be a

shift from LGVs to M1 vehicles, which is an argument to include commercially used M1 vehicles

also to some extent.

No major market impacts are considered for the ISA scenarios, both for HCVs and LCVs.

Policy discussion and conclusions

The results of the ex-ante evaluations suggest that there is no need to change the speed set with the

speed limiters for HCVs. There is also not much support among stakeholders and Member States

for doing so.

On the other hand, based on the ex-ante evaluations, there are several options for improving the

effectiveness of the Speed Limitation Directive, in particular:

To improve traffic safety, requiring all commercial vehicles to be equipped with an ISA system that

provides tactile feedback to the driver (for HCVs combined with the existing speed limiter).

For reducing emission, introducing speed limiters for LCVs is an effective measure.

In the evaluation carried out in this study it was not feasible to simulate scenarios with subsets of

N1 or M1 vehicles covered by the Directive. However, to ensure a level playing field and to avoid

unintended shifts, e.g. between N1 and M1 vehicles, policy options for including certain types of

M1 vehicles could be considered. This topic is recommended as subject for further study.


Résumé

Contexte, objectif et méthodologie

L’installation de limiteurs de vitesse et de systèmes d'adaptation intelligente de la vitesse (ISA) est

un moyen jugé efficace pour améliorer la sécurité routière et réduire les émissions et les bruits du

trafic. Elle vise avant tout la vitesse de conduite inadaptée, qui représente l’une des principales

causes d’accidents de la route, particulièrement sur les autoroutes. Les politiques en matière de

vitesse peuvent être considérées comme étant complémentaires aux autres politiques visant les

autres causes d’accidents ou d’émissions, comme la technologie automobile et énergétique, la

consommation d’alcool ou les infrastructures peu sûres.

La directive 92/6/CEE sollicitait l’installation de dispositifs de limitation de vitesse sur les poids

lourds et les autobus (véhicules N3 et M3). En 2002, cette « directive de limitation de la vitesse » a

été modifiée par la directive 2002/85/CE, qui exigeait que tous les véhicules utilitaires lourds, donc

également les véhicules des catégories N2 et M2, soient équipés de limiteurs de vitesse. La directive

2002/85/CE demande à la Commission d’évaluer son impact sur la sécurité routière et la

circulation. Dans ce contexte, la Commission européenne a chargé Transport and Mobility Leuven,

CE Delft, TRT et TNO de mener cette étude d’évaluation.

Les limiteurs de vitesse et l’ISA peuvent contribuer aux principaux objectifs stratégiques du Livre

blanc sur le transport de 2011, en particulier en s’approchant du niveau « zéro accident mortel » sur

les routes en 2050 et en réduisant de 60 % les émissions de GES en 2050, par rapport aux chiffres

de 1990. La politique en matière de vitesse peut être considérée comme nécessaire, mais ne suffit

pas à elle seule pour atteindre ces objectifs. L’argument principal en faveur du maintien du rôle joué

par l’UE dans la politique en matière de vitesse est visiblement de garantir l’harmonisation des

règles pour tous les véhicules utilisés à des fins commerciales au sein de tous les États membres.

L’objectif général de cette étude consiste à seconder la Commission européenne dans l’évaluation

ex post de la « directive de limitation de la vitesse » et d’explorer et examiner les possibilités de

remanier la directive (évaluation ex ante). Parmi ces possibilités figurent notamment la modification

de la vitesse maximale appliquée aux véhicules utilitaires lourds, l’élargissement du champ

d’application de la directive aux véhicules utilitaires légers (y compris les véhicules commerciaux

légers et les petits autobus, respectivement les véhicules des catégories N1 et M1) et/ou

l’introduction d’exigences visant à installer plusieurs types d’ISA. L’analyse s’appuie sur un examen

de la littérature existante, une enquête menée auprès des parties prenantes et des États membres,

des entretiens, un atelier réunissant les parties concernées et une analyse et une modélisation

approfondies des données.

Évaluation ex post

D’après l’enquête menée dans le cadre de ce projet, aucun problème particulier n’a été rencontré

lors de la mise en œuvre de la directive de limitation de la vitesse, à quelques exceptions près,

concernant les frais administratifs et techniques. Tous les États membres qui ont répondu au

questionnaire (63 % de l’ensemble des États membres de l’UE) ont appliqué les vitesses maximales

établies dans la directive et contrôlent régulièrement la conformité des véhicules. Dans la plupart


des cas, ces vérifications ont lieu lors de contrôles routiers et/ou lors des contrôles techniques

annuels.

Les incidences de la directive sur les vitesses réelles des véhicules sont difficiles à estimer en raison

des limites des données. La comparaison des rares données historiques disponibles sur les vitesses

de circulation n’a révélé aucun effet notable de la directive sur la distribution de vitesse. L’analyse

statistique de l’évolution du risque d’accident des véhicules utilitaires lourds n’a montré aucun signe

évident de l’influence de la directive sur la sécurité du trafic, essentiellement en raison des limites

des données. Toutefois, la distribution de vitesse observée il y a 10 ans sans limiteurs de vitesse

n’est sans doute pas représentative de la situation actuelle sans limiteurs de vitesse.

C’est pourquoi une seconde approche a été adoptée, basée sur les relations entre les distributions de

vitesse et les taux d’accidents et l’impact des limiteurs de vitesse sur les distributions de vitesse. Dès

lors, en fonction de données réelles, davantage de distributions de vitesse théoriques ont été

envisagées, ainsi que l’impact des limiteurs de vitesse sur ces distributions. En utilisant ces

distributions de vitesse avec et sans limiteurs de vitesse, les effets sur la sécurité et les émissions ont

été calculés. Cette analyse a montré que la directive avait un impact positif sur la sécurité routière.

Globalement, on estime que cet impact a permis de réduire les accidents mortels sur autoroute

impliquant des véhicules utilitaires lourds de 9 %, les blessures graves de 4 % et les accidents

entraînant des blessés de 3 %. On estime qu’il y a environ 50 accidents mortels en moins par an,

grâce à la directive de limitation de la vitesse. Ces résultats doivent toutefois être considérés comme

indicatifs. Malheureusement, peu de données existent permettant d’identifier l’impact de

l’introduction de dispositifs de limitation de la vitesse sur la sécurité routière, surtout pour les

catégories de véhicules N2 et M2.

Les effets sur les émissions ont été estimés en comparant les profils de vitesse. Cette analyse a

montré que, pour l’ensemble de l’UE, l’introduction de limiteurs de vitesse a entraîné une

diminution de 1 % du total des émissions de CO2, NOx et de particules des véhicules utilitaires

lourds.

L’évaluation des effets sur le marché s’est focalisée sur les impacts possibles sur un passage des

véhicules utilitaires lourds aux véhicules utilitaires légers, les frais de transport, la conception des

véhicules et l’application et la fraude. Aucun signe évident de l’existence de problèmes n’a été

constaté pour ces impacts. En ce qui concerne le passage aux véhicules utilitaires légers, certains

pays l’ont effectivement observé, mais cela pourrait également découler d’autres réglementations ou

influences. Les personnes interrogées n’ont pas identifié la fraude comme un problème, mais celle-

ci s’est avérée problématique dans la littérature issue de l’extérieur de l’UE.

Évaluations ex ante

Quatre scénarios ont été évalués pour les véhicules utilitaires lourds, et également quatre pour les

véhicules utilitaires légers. Malheureusement, rares sont les données qui permettent d’évaluer les

impacts de l’élargissement du champ d’application de la directive sur les véhicules de catégorie M1

utilisés à des fins commerciales. Par conséquent, les scénarios relatifs aux véhicules utilitaires légers

ont été limités aux véhicules commerciaux légers (véhicules N1). On peut néanmoins s’attendre à ce

que les résultats pour les véhicules N1 soient représentatifs pour les véhicules M1 utilisés à des fins

commerciales, étant donné que les paramètres servant à déterminer les impacts sur la sécurité et les

émissions sont en grande partie identiques.

L’analyse montre que, globalement, les scénarios ISA génèrent les plus fortes réductions en matière

de sécurité routière, aussi bien pour les véhicules utilitaires lourds que pour les véhicules utilitaires


légers, particulièrement lorsque le système n’est pas simplement informatif, mais donne également

un feedback actif (ISA volontaire). Tant pour les véhicules utilitaires lourds que pour les véhicules

utilitaires légers, le scénario prévoyant un système ISA de ce type montre une réduction du nombre

d’accidents dans l’UE impliquant des véhicules utilitaires lourds/légers de 25 % pour les accidents

mortels, de 18 à 19 % pour les accidents entraînant de graves blessures et de 11 % pour tous les

accidents entraînant des blessures. Ces chiffres correspondent à une réduction du nombre

d’accidents mortels par an d’environ 150 (ISA pour véhicules utilitaires lourds) et 600 (ISA pour

véhicules utilitaires légers).

Baisser la limitation de vitesse à respectivement 80 et 90 km/h pour les poids lourds et les autobus

entraîne une diminution d’environ 5 % des accidents mortels impliquant des véhicules utilitaires

lourds. Ce même pourcentage de diminution a été observé dans le scénario impliquant des limiteurs

de vitesse réglés sur 100 km/h pour les véhicules commerciaux légers. Ces taux sont plus bas que

pour les scénarios ISA, car les limiteurs de vitesse n’ont d’influence que sur le trafic sur autoroute et

sur les routes de campagne dont les limitations de vitesse sont relativement élevées ; les systèmes

ISA influencent la sécurité sur toutes les routes. Étant donné que le nombre absolu d’accidents est

plus élevé sur ces types de routes, les systèmes ISA ont un impact global plus important sur la

sécurité routière. Il convient néanmoins de noter que les limiteurs de vitesse constituent un moyen

efficace d’améliorer la sécurité routière sur autoroute : ils permettent de réduire les accidents

mortels impliquant des véhicules commerciaux légers de 16 à 28 % (ce qui correspond à 40 à 70

accidents mortels par an).

Les effets sur les émissions sont quelque peu différents des effets sur la sécurité : les limiteurs de

vitesse peuvent exercer un impact important sur les émissions, en particulier sur les autoroutes,

tandis que l’impact de l’ISA est dans la plupart des cas proche de zéro. Les plus fortes réductions

d’émissions pour les véhicules utilitaires lourds sont observées lorsque la vitesse fixée avec les

limiteurs de vitesse est réduite à 80 et 90 km/h pour les poids lourds et les autobus, respectivement.

Dans ce cas, tant les émissions de polluants que de CO2 diminuent, avec environ 4 à 6 % des

émissions des véhicules utilitaires lourds sur des routes non urbaines dans l’Europe des 27 (ce qui

correspond à une réduction d’environ 9 mt de CO2). En ce qui concerne les véhicules utilitaires

légers, les plus fortes réductions d’émissions sont observées dans le scénario impliquant une

limitation de vitesse fixée à 100 km/h, avec des réductions d’émissions sur toutes les routes non

urbaines d’environ 4 à 5 % pour le CO2 (environ 2 mt de CO2) et les particules, et même 14 %

pour le NOx. Lorsque le limiteur de vitesse est fixé à 110 km/h, les réductions d’émissions sont

moins de deux fois moins élevées.

L’application des limiteurs de vitesse aux véhicules commerciaux légers est généralement perçue

comme un moyen de réduire les coûts de fonctionnement et de maintenance du véhicule.

Conjuguée aux limitations des émissions de CO2 pour les véhicules utilitaires légers, elle pourrait

également entraîner une diminution de la puissance du moteur, favorisant ainsi une réduction

supplémentaire des émissions de CO2. En ce qui concerne les coûts de mise en conformité,

l’extension de la directive impliquerait l’adoption de mesures relatives à l’adaptation de la flotte

existante et des politiques d’application ad hoc devront être mises en œuvre afin d’éviter les fraudes

et les comportements illicites.

Limiter davantage la vitesse pour les véhicules utilitaires lourds peut sans doute entraîner un

transfert vers les véhicules utilitaires légers et probablement générer un effet positif sur les coûts de

fonctionnement. Les scénarios impliquant des véhicules utilitaires légers munis de limiteurs de

vitesse sont considérés par certains intervenants et opérateurs comme une étape vers une meilleure

harmonisation dans le secteur du transport routier. Cependant, la vitesse n’est pas le seul facteur qui


influence le choix de la taille du véhicule utilitaire. Si seuls les véhicules N1 sont inclus, on pourrait

assister à un passage des véhicules commerciaux légers aux véhicules M1, ce qui constitue un

argument pour intégrer également les véhicules M1 utilisés à des fins commerciales dans une

certaine mesure.

Aucun impact majeur sur le marché n’a été envisagé pour les scénarios ISA, tant pour les véhicules

utilitaires lourds que pour les véhicules utilitaires légers.

Discussion sur la politique et conclusions

Les résultats des évaluations ex ante suggèrent qu’il n’est pas nécessaire de modifier la vitesse fixée

par les limiteurs de vitesse pour les véhicules utilitaires lourds. En outre, cette possibilité ne reçoit

pas beaucoup de soutien de la part des parties prenantes et des États membres.

En revanche, sur base des évaluations ex ante, il existe plusieurs options visant à améliorer

l’efficacité de la directive de limitation de la vitesse, en particulier :

Améliorer la sécurité routière, ce qui demande que tous les véhicules utilitaires soient

équipés d’un système ISA qui fournit un feedback tactile au conducteur (pour les véhicules

utilitaires lourds, en association avec le limiteur de vitesse existant).

Pour réduire les émissions, l’introduction de limiteurs de vitesse pour les véhicules

utilitaires légers constitue une mesure efficace.

Lors de l’évaluation réalisée dans le cadre de cette étude, il n’était pas possible de simuler des

scénarios impliquant des sous-ensembles de véhicules N1 ou M1 englobés dans la directive.

Néanmoins, afin d’assurer une harmonisation et d’éviter les changements non souhaités, par

exemple entre les véhicules N1 et M1, des options visant à inclure certains types de véhicules M1

pourraient être prises en compte. Ce thème devrait idéalement faire l’objet d’une prochaine étude.


Zusammenfassung

Kontext, Ziel und Methodologie

Die Installation von Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzern und Intelligent Speed Adaption Systems (ISA)

(Intelligenten Geschwindigkeitsanpassungssystemen) wird als effektiver Weg zur Erhöhung der

Verkehrssicherheit bei gleichzeitiger Reduzierung von Emissionen und Verkehrslärm angesehen.

Sie zielt spezifisch auf das Problem unangepasster Geschwindigkeit, eine der Hauptursachen von

Unfällen im Straßenverkehr, insbesondere auf Autobahnen. Geschwindigkeitsstrategien können als

komplementär zu anderen Strategien erachtet werden, das heißt als ergänzend zu Strategien, die

sich auf andere Unfallursachen oder Emissionen wie Fahrzeug- und Energietechnologie,

Alkoholmissbrauch oder unsichere Infrastruktur auswirken.

Die Richtlinie 92/6/EEC erforderte die Installation von Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzern in großen

Lastkraftwagen (LKW) und Bussen (Fahrzeugklassen N3 und M3). Im Jahr 2002 wurde diese

„Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzungsrichtlinie“ ergänzt durch die Richtlinie 2002/85/EC, die die

Ausstattung aller schweren gewerblichen Nutzfahrzeuge, also auch aller Fahrzeuge der Klassen N2

und M2, mit Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzern verbindlich vorschrieb. Zudem verlangt die Richtlinie

2002/85/EC von der Kommission, ihre Auswirkung auf die Bereiche Verkehr und

Verkehrssicherheit zu evaluieren. In diesem Zusammenhang hat die EU-Kommission die

Transport & Mobility Leuven, CE Delft, TRT und TNO mit der Durchführung dieser

Evaluationsstudie beauftragt.

Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzer und ISA-Systeme können zur Erreichung wichtiger Strategieziele des

Transport-Weißbuchs von 2011 beitragen, insbesondere im Hinblick auf die Ziele „Null

Verkehrstote im Straßentransport bis 2050“ und die Reduzierung von THG-Emissionen bis 2050

auf 60% des Standes von 1990. Die Geschwindigkeitsstrategie kann als notwendig, jedoch nicht

alleinig ausreichend zu Erreichung dieser Ziele angesehen werden. Das Hauptargument dafür, dass

die EU auch weiterhin eine Rolle im Rahmen der Geschwindigkeitsstrategie spielen sollte, scheint

die Gewährleistung eines ausgewogenen Spielfeldes für alle gewerblich genutzten Fahrzeuge über

die einzelnen Mitgliedsstaaten hinweg zu sein.

Ziel dieser Studie ist es, die EU-Kommission im Rahmen der Ex-Post-Evaluation der

„Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzungsrichtlinie“ zu unterstützen und Optionen im Hinblick auf die

Revision der Richtlinie zu untersuchen und zu bewerten (Ex-Ante-Evaluation). Diese Optionen

schließen die Änderung der Höchstgeschwindigkeit für schwere gewerbliche Nutzfahrzeuge, die

Ausdehnung des Geltungsbereichs der Richtlinie auf leichte gewerbliche Nutzfahrzeuge (inkl.

Kleinlastwagen und Kleinbusse, respektive Fahrzeuge der Klassen N1 und M1) und/oder die

Einführung von Vorgaben für die Installation verschiedener Arten von ISA-Systemen. Die Analyse

basiert auf einer Übersicht über die vorhandene Literatur, einer Umfrage unter Interessengruppen

und Mitgliedsstaaten, Interviews, einem Workshop für Akteure auf diesem Feld sowie umfassender

Datenanalyse und -modellierung.

Ex-Post-Evaluation

Laut den Ergebnissen der Umfrage, die im Zusammenhang mit diesem Projekt durchgeführt

wurde, war man – abgesehen von wenigen Ausnahmen hinsichtlich administrativer und technischer


Kosten – auf keine besonderen Probleme im Rahmen der Einführung der

Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzungsrichtlinie gestoßen. Alle Mitgliedsstaaten, die sich an der Umfrage

beteiligt haben (63% aller EU-Mitgliedsstaaten), haben die in der Richtlinie fixierten

Höchstgeschwindigkeiten eingeführt und überprüfen deren Einhaltung durch die betreffenden

Fahrzeuge regelmäßig. In den meisten Fällen geschieht dies im Zuge von Verkehrskontrollen

und/oder der jährlichen TÜV-/Verkehrstauglichkeits-Untersuchungen.

Die Auswirkungen der Richtlinie auf die tatsächlichen Fahrzeuggeschwindigkeiten sind aufgrund

der begrenzten Datenverfügbarkeit nur schwierig einzuschätzen. Beim Vergleich mit den nur

spärlich vorhandenen historischen Daten zur Verkehrsgeschwindigkeit konnte kein eindeutiger

Effekt der Richtlinie auf die Geschwindigkeitsverteilung festgestellt werden. Die statistische

Analyse der Entwicklung des Unfallrisikos von schweren gewerblichen Nutzfahrzeugen ergab – vor

allem aufgrund der begrenzten Datenverfügbarkeit – keinen klaren Beweis für Auswirkungen der

Richtlinie auf die Verkehrssicherheit. Möglicherweise ist jedoch die Geschwindigkeitsverteilung

ohne Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzer, so wie sie sich vor 10 Jahren darstellte, nicht bezeichnend für

eine heutige Situation ohne Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzer.

Aus diesem Grund wurde eine andere Herangehensweise umgesetzt, basierend auf Beziehungen

zwischen den Geschwindigkeitsverteilungen, Unfallraten und dem Einfluss von

Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzern auf die Geschwindigkeitsverteilungen. Folglich wurden, basierend auf

realen Daten, eher theoretische Geschwindigkeitsverteilungen sowie der Effekt von

Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzern auf diese Verteilungen angenommen. Mit Hilfe dieser

Geschwindigkeitsverteilungen mit und ohne Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzer wurden die Auswirkungen

auf Sicherheit und Emissionen berechnet. Diese Analyse zeigte, dass die Richtlinie einen positiven

Einfluss auf die Verkehrssicherheit hatte. Insgesamt wurden die Auswirkungen geschätzt auf eine

Reduzierung von 9% bei tödlichen Autobahnunfällen mit Beteiligung schwerer gewerblicher

Nutzfahrzeuge, 4% bei Unfällen mit Schwerverletzten und 3% bei Unfällen mit Verletzten

überhaupt. Es wird geschätzt, dass die Anzahl der Todesfälle pro Jahr infolge der

Geschwindigkeitsbeschränkungsrichtlinie um etwa 50 gesenkt werden konnte. Diese Ergebnisse

sollten als bezeichnend angesehen werden. Leider fehlen die nötigen Daten um abzugrenzen,

welche Auswirkungen sich durch die Einführung von Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzern spezifisch bei

den Fahrzeugklassen N2 und M2 ergeben haben.

Die Effekte im Bereich der Emissionen wurden durch Vergleiche der Geschwindigkeitsprofile

geschätzt. Diese Analyse zeigte, dass die Einführung von Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzern für die EU

als Ganzes die Reduzierung der CO2-, NOx- und PM-Gesamt-Emissionen von schweren

gewerblichen Nutzfahrzeugen um 1% zum Ergebnis hatte.

Die Evaluation der Marktauswirkungen konzentrierte sich auf die möglichen Auswirkungen auf

eine Verschiebung zwischen schweren und leichten gewerblichen Nutzfahrzeugen, die

Transportkosten, das Fahrzeugdesign, Maut und Betrug. Für keinen dieser Bereiche wurden klare

Beweise für Probleme gefunden. Was eine Verschiebung hin zu gewerblichen en Nutzfahrzeugen

angeht, so wurde diese Verschiebung in der Tat von einigen Ländern beobachtet, könnte jedoch

auch durch andere Vorschriften oder Einflüsse verursacht sein. Betrug wurde bei den Befragten

nicht als Problem gesehen, tauchte jedoch in außerhalb der EU verfasster Literatur als Problem

auch.

Ex-Ante-Evaluationen

Evaluiert wurden je vier Szenarien für schwere und für leichte gewerbliche Nutzfahrzeuge. Leider

fehlen Daten für die Evaluierung der Auswirkungen einer Ausdehnung des Geltungsbereichs der


Richtlinie auf gewerblich genutzte Fahrzeuge der Klasse M1. Die Szenarien für leichte gewerbliche

Nutzfahrzeuge wurden daher auf Kleinlastwagen (Fahrzeuge der Klasse N1) beschränkt. Da jedoch

die für die Auswirkungen auf Sicherheit und Emissionen entscheidenden Parameter weitgehend die

gleichen sind, darf man erwarten, dass die Ergebnisse für Fahrzeuge der Klasse N1 repräsentativ

für gewerblich genutzte Fahrzeuge der Klasse M1 sind.

Die Analyse zeigt, dass die ISA-Szenarien insgesamt sowohl bei schweren als auch bei leichten

gewerblichen Nutzfahrzeugen die stärksten Auswirkungen auf die Verkehrssicherheit haben,

insbesondere wenn das jeweilige System nicht nur rein informativer Natur ist, sondern auch aktiv

Rückmeldung gibt (Voluntary ISA). Sowohl im Falle von schweren als auch leichten gewerblichen

Nutzfahrzeuge zeigt das Szenario mit solch einem ISA-System eine Reduzierung der EU-weiten

Unfallzahlen mit Beteiligung von schweren bzw. leichten gewerbliche Nutzfahrzeugen um etwa

25% bei tödlichen Unfällen, 18-19% bei Unfällen mit Schwerverletzen und 11% bei Unfällen mit

Verletzen überhaupt. Dies entspricht einer Reduzierung der Anzahl der Todesfälle pro Jahr um 150

(ISA für schwere gewerbliche Nutzfahrzeuge) bzw. 600 (ISA für leichte gewerbliche

Nutzfahrzeuge).

Die Senkung Höchstgeschwindigkeiten auf 80 bzw. 90 km/h für LKW und Busse führt zu einer

Reduzierung der tödlichen Unfälle mit Beteiligung schwerer gewerblicher Nutzfahrzeuge um etwa

5%. Ein ähnlicher prozentualer Anteil zeigte sich für das Szenario mit einer Einstellung der

Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzer von Kleinlastwagen auf 100 km/h. Diese Raten sind geringer als die für

die ISA-Szenarien, da Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzer lediglich Autobahnen sowie Landstraßen mit

relativ hoch festgelegten Höchstgeschwindigkeiten betreffen; ISA-Systeme hingegen wirken sich auf

die Verkehrssicherheit auf allen Straßen aus. Weil die absolute Zahl der Unfälle auf diesen

Straßentypen höher ist, haben ISA-Systeme einen insgesamt größeren Einfluss auf die

Verkehrssicherheit. Es sollte jedoch beachtet werden, dass Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzer ein

effektives Mittel zur Erhöhung der Verkehrssicherheit auf Autobahnen sind: Sie ermöglichen eine

Reduzierung der tödlichen Unfälle mit Beteiligung von Kleinlastwagen um 16% bis 28% (was einer

Zahl von 40 bis 70 tödlichen Unfällen pro Jahr entspricht).

Die Auswirkungen im Bereich der Emissionen hingegen unterscheiden sich deutlich von denen im

Bereich Sicherheit: Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzer können, insbesondere auf Autobahnen, starke

Auswirkungen auf Emissionen haben, während die Auswirkungen von ISA in den meisten Fällen

gen Null gehen. Die stärksten Emissionsreduzierungen bei schweren gewerblichen Nutzfahrzeugen

kann bei einer Einstellung der Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzer auf 80 bzw. 90 km/h bei LKW und

Bussen festgestellt werden. In diesem Fall werden sowohl der Ausstoß von Schadstoffen als auch

der von CO2-Emissionen durch schwere Nutzfahrzeuge auf nicht-städtischen Straßen in den EU27

um ca. 4% bis 6% gesenkt (was einer Reduzierung von 9Mt CO2 entspricht). Bei leichten

gewerblichen Nutzfahrzeugen lassen sich die stärksten Reduzierungen im Falle des Szenarios einer

Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung auf 100 km/h festgestellt, was auf allen nicht-städtischen Straßen zu

Emissionsreduzierungen von etwa 4% bis 5% bei CO2 (ca. 2 Mt CO2) und PM-Emissionen und

sogar 14% bei NOx führt. Bei Einstellung der Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzer auf 110 km/h sind die

erzielten Emissionsreduzierungen nicht einmal halb so hoch.

Aus Ausdehnung der Anwendung von Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzern auf Kleinlastwagen wird

generell als ein Weg zur Reduzierung der Fahrzeugbetriebs- und -wartungskosten angesehen. In

Kombination mit den CO2-Emmissionsgrenzwerten für leichte gewerbliche Nutzfahrzeuge könnte

dies darüber hinaus zu einer tendenziellen Reduzierung der Motorleistung und somit einer

zusätzlichen Reduzierung des CO2-Ausstoßes führen. Hinsichtlich des Kostenaufwands für die

Einhaltung entsprechender Vorschriften würde die Ausdehnung der Richtlinie Maßnahmen in


Bezug auf die Nachrüstung der bestehenden Flotte beinhalten; daneben müssen ad-hoc

Durchsetzungsstrategien zur Vermeidung von Betrug und illegalem Verhalten eingeführt und

angewandt werden.

Eine weitere Reduzierung der Geschwindigkeit von schweren gewerblichen Nutzfahrzeugen lässt

eine Verschiebung hin zu leichten gewerblichen Nutzfahrzeugen, die weniger Regeln unterliegen,

erwarten und kann möglicherweise zu einem positiven Effekt in puncto Betriebskosten führen. Die

Szenarien für leichte gewerbliche Nutzfahrzeuge mit Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzern werden von

einigen Akteuren und Betreibern als Schritt hin zu einem ausgewogeneren Spielfeld im

Straßentransport gesehen. Geschwindigkeit ist jedoch nicht der einzige Faktor, der die Wahl der

Größe eines gewerblichen Nutzfahrzeuges beinflusst. Würden nur Fahrzeuge der Klasse N1

eingeschlossen, ergäbe sich eventuell eine Verschiebung von Kleinlastwagen hin zu Fahrzeugen der

Klasse M1, was ein Argument dafür ist, gewerblich genutzte Fahrzeuge der Klasse M1 bis zu einem

gewissen Grad ebenfalls einzubeziehen.

Was die ISA-Szenarien angeht, sieht man hier weder bei schweren noch bei leichten gewerblichen

Nutzfahrzeugen bedeutende Auswirkungen auf den Markt.

Strategie-Diskussionen und Schlussfolgerungen

Die Ergebnisse der Ex-Ante-Evaluationen legen nahe, dass im Falle von schweren gewerblichen

Nutzfahrzeugen keine Notwendigkeit für die Änderung der Einstellung der

Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzer besteht. Auch findet ein solches Ansinnen wenig Unterstützung bei

Akteuren und Mitgliedsstaaten.

Auf der anderen Seite sind, basierend auf den Ex-Ante-Evaluationen, diverse Optionen zur

Optimierung der Effektivität der Geschwindigkeitsbeschränkungsrichtlinie gegeben, wie

insbesondere:

zur Erhöhung der Verkehrssicherheit durch Ausstattung aller gewerblichen Nutzfahrzeuge

mit ISA-Systemen, die dem Fahrer taktiles Feedback geben (im Falle schwerer gewerblicher

Nutzfahrzeuge in Kombination mit den bereits vorhandenen

Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzern);

zur Reduzierung von Emissionen durch Einführung von Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzern für

leichte gewerbliche Nutzfahrzeuge, was in diesem Bereich eine effektive Maßnahme wäre.

Im Rahmen der Evaluation innerhalb dieser Studie war es nicht möglich, Szenarien mit durch die

Richtlinie abgedeckten Untermengen von Fahrzeugen der Klassen N1 oder M1 zu simulieren. Um

jedoch ein ausgewogenes Spielfeld zu gewährleisten und unbeabsichtigte Verschiebungen,

beispielsweise zwischen Fahrzeugen der Klassen N1 und M1, zu vermeiden, könnten Strategie-

Optionen zur Einbeziehung bestimmter Typen der Fahrzeugklasse M1 in Betracht gezogen werden.

Es wird empfohlen, dieses Thema zum Gegenstand einer weiteren Studie zu machen.


1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Limiting the vehicle speed of road vehicles by installing speed limitation devices constitutes a

measure to improve road safety, especially on motorways, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,

pollutant emissions and traffic noise.

Excessive vehicle speeds are a main cause for road accidents, particularly on motorways. The

European Truck Accident Causation (ETAC) Study1 ranked a non-adapted speed first in top three

of the main causes for motorway accidents with HGVs involved. Also for LCVs speed is an

important cause for motorways accidents. In a recent study for Germany it is estimated that 28% of

the accidents on German motorways with LCVs involved are caused by excessive speeds2.

The potential contribution of speed reduction to greenhouse gas reduction was, among others,

studied in the EU Transport GHG Routes to 2050 projects3. This study concluded that significant

reduction of GHG emission could be achieved, particularly on motorways.

Mandatory speed limitation device are one of the policy options for reducing vehicle speeds. The

first stage of an EU legislation on speed limitation devices was set by Directive 92/6/EEC which

required speed limitation devices to be installed on N3 vehicles (heavy goods vehicles –HGVs -

with maximum mass above 12 tonnes) and on M3 vehicles (buses) above 10 tonnes. In 2002, this

Directive was amended by Directive 2002/85/EC, which obliged also N2 vehicles (smaller HGVs

with maximum mass between 3.5 and 12 tonnes) and M2 vehicles (buses with more than eight seats

+ the driver's one with maximum mass not exceeding 5 tonnes) and M3 vehicles below 10 tonnes

to be equipped with speed limiters. Directive 2002/85/EC also requires the Commission to assess

the road safety and traffic impacts of adjusting the speed limitation devices used by category M2

vehicles and by category N2 vehicles of 7.5 tonnes or less to the speeds laid down by the Directive.

In this context, the European Commission commissioned Transport and Mobility Leuven, CE

Delft, TRT and TNO4 to carry out an evaluation study on this topic. This is the final report of this

study.

1.2 Aim and scope of the study

The overall objective of this study is to assist the European Commission with the ex-post

evaluation of the current Directive 92/6/EEC as amended by Directive 2002/85/EC on speed

limitation devices ("Speed Limitation Directive") and to explore and evaluate options for revising

the Directive (ex-ante evaluation). More specifically, the objectives of the study are:

1 Scientific Study ETAC: European Truck Accident Causation( ) Final Report 2 BASt ea (2013), Project Report, Safety of Light Commercial Vehicles 3 Source: EU Transport GHG Routes to 2050 project, www.eutransportghg2050.eu . 4 The study is carried out within the Framework Contract MOVE/A3/350-2010 Impact Assessments and Evaluations

(Ex-Ante, Intermediate and Ex-Post) in the Field of the Transport.


1) To carry out an ex-post evaluation of the application of the Speed Limitation Directive.

2) To assess whether and how the Speed Limitation Directive could be amended to improve its

effectiveness and efficiency.

The second objective includes assessment of options for changing the maximum speed applied for

Heavy Commercial Vehicles (HCVs), extending the scope of the Directive to Light Commercial

Vehicles (LCVs) and/or by application of various types of intelligent speed assistance/adaptation

(ISA) devices for HCVs or LCVs.

The results of this evaluation study will be used to decide whether a proposal for amendment is

needed and if so, what type of amendment would be needed.

For the evaluation of the current Speed Limitation Directive and of the options for amending the

Speed Limitation Directive, the following set of impacts is considered:

1) Impacts of the Speed Limitation Directive on the application of speed limitation devices

and impacts of these devices on vehicle speed and speed profiles.

2) Safety and environmental impacts:

a) Road safety;

b) Fuel consumption and CO2 emissions;

c) Pollutant emissions (PM and NOx);

d) Driving behaviour.

3) Market impacts of the regulation and level playing field:

a) Vehicle design (e.g. engines);

b) Shifts between vehicle categories, in particular between HCVs and LCVs;

c) Fraud;

d) Administrative burden and costs for compliance/enforcement;

e) Small and medium enterprises (SME’s).

The final impacts on safety and emissions and the various types of market impacts all depend on

the changes in driving speeds, which depend on the way the EU Directive is implemented by the

various EU Member States. The relationships between the Directive and the final impacts are

illustrated in Figure 1-1.


Figure 1-1: Relationship between the EU Directive and its impacts

1.3 Structure of the report

This report is structured as follows. In Chapter 2 the methodology is presented, both for the ex-

ante and the ex-post evaluations. It includes an overview of the relevant literature, the general

assumptions and data used as well as the approach for evaluating the impacts on speeds, safety and

emissions and the market impacts. This chapter also includes an assessment of various types of

intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) devices.

To gather available data, a survey among Member States and stakeholders has been carried out.

Furthermore, a stakeholder workshop has been organised to gather views and other input from

relevant stakeholders. The results of the survey and the stakeholder workshop constitute important

input for both the ex-ante and ex-post evaluations of the Speed Limitation Directive and are

presented in Chapter 3. In chapter 4, the results of the ex-post evaluation of the application of the

Speed Limitation Directive to HCVs are presented. Chapter 5 and 6 show the results of the ex-ante

evaluations of various options for amending the Speed Limitation Directive with respect to HCVs

and LCVs, respectively. Finally, the main conclusions and recommendation of the study are

presented in chapter 7.

The annexes contain data and assumptions used for the analysis and further details on the approach

as referred to in the main text of this report.

EU Directive

Implementation by EU Member States

Application of speed limitation devices

Impacts on driving speeds

Impacts on safety, emissions and markets


2 Methodology for the evaluation

2.1 Introduction and overall approach

This study combines an ex-post evaluation of the current Speed Limitation Directive with an ex-

ante evaluation of options for amending the Speed Limitation Directive. In this chapter the

methodology is described.

The ex-post evaluation of the Speed Limitation Directive focuses on the impacts of the application

of speed limitation devices on HCVs in general and on M2 and N2 vehicles in particular. The ex-

ante evaluation explores the two main directions into which the Speed Limitation Directive could

be amended: modifying speed limits for vehicle categories currently under the scope of the Speed

Limitation Directive and/or enlarging the scope to include LCVs. Options for this are identified

and evaluated, including options of introducing ISA systems.

Both ex-post and the ex-ante evaluations are based on the results of a survey, interviews, literature

review and data analysis. Additional input was gathered via a stakeholder workshop. The impacts

covered in the ex-post and ex-ante evaluations are the impacts on speeds, road safety and emissions

as well as the various market impacts.

The methodologies for evaluating the various impacts are largely the same for the ex-post

evaluation and the two ex-ante evaluations (on HCVs and LCVs). Therefore, the approach for the

evaluation of impacts is described per type of impact. The evaluation of impacts starts with an

analysis of the impacts on vehicle speeds. Based on this, the impacts on traffic safety and emissions

are quantified by applying relationships between speed and accidents and between speed and

emissions, respectively. For the ex-post analysis also a time series analysis has been carried out on

the relevant accidents statistics. Market impacts are evaluated in a qualitative way. Table 2-1

summarizes the methodologies used for the evaluation of the various types of impacts.

Table 2-1: Summary of the methodologies used for evaluating the various impacts

Type of impact

Methodology

Ex-post evaluation Ex-ante evaluations

Speed

Literature review of vehicle speeds and data from

Member State survey and stakeholder workshop Modelling (using speed data from literature)

Literature review of vehicle speeds and data from

Member State survey and stakeholder workshop Modelling (using speed data from literature)

Traffic safety

Time series analysis of road accident statistics Modelling (using speed data and speed-accidents

relationships from literature)

Modelling (using speed data and speed-accidents relationships from literature)

For ISA: data from literature on the relationship between ISA and traffic safety

Fuel consumption and emissions

Modelling (using speed data and the VERSIT+ -model for speed-emissions relationships)

Modelling (using speed data and the VERSIT+ -model for speed-emissions relationships)

For ISA: modelling data complemented with data from literature on the relationship between ISA and

emissions

Market impacts Qualitative assessment (based on literature review,

survey and stakeholder workshop)

Qualitative assessment (based on literature review,

survey and stakeholder workshop)


The data available is scarce. Therefore it is not always be possible to obtain the necessary data to

precisely estimate the effects of the current Speed Limitation Directive or of the scenarios for

amending it. Limitations to the data presented in this report are included whenever relevant for the

understanding and interpretation of the results.

The methodology for the literature review and an overview of the main findings from previous

assessments as found in literature are summarized in section 2.2. The methodology for the survey,

interviews and stakeholder workshop are described in section 2.3.

In section 2.3.2 the general assumptions and data used are described. The geographical scope is also

defined. Also the reference years are defined.

Then section 2.5 introduces the ISA systems, and provides an overview of the different types,

components and effects of ISA.

The next methodological sections cover speed impacts (section 2.6), safety impacts (section 2.7),

impacts on emissions (section 2.8) and market impacts (section 2.8.1), all for both the ex-post and

ex-ante evaluations.

Finally, the last section presents the evaluation questions and how these are addressed in this study.

2.2 Previous assessments: literature review

2.2.1 Methodology

The literature review exists of desk research of various relevant reports, scientific articles, data

sources and own work performed previously by the researchers. Some of the literature was

suggested by the stakeholders, others were selected by the researchers. Additional queries for data

were made via e-mail and phone, when appropriate.

The literature review focussed on:

- Previous assessment of imposing a speed limiter for HCV – both ex-ante and ex-post;

- Studies focussing on the main crash types of trucks;

- Studies assessing the effect of equipping N1 vehicles with speed limiters.

2.2.2 Results

Previous assessments of the effects of speed limitation devices on HCVs

Up to now, the European Commission has not made a quantitative evaluation or impact

assessment of the Speed limitation Directive. Also no national assessments were found or reported

in the survey. In a summary report5 from the European Commission it was concluded that the

implementation would lower fuel consumption (from 3 to 11%), lower maintenance costs (tires,

brakes, engine), increase road safety (fewer casualties) and lead to a more relaxed driving experience

and reduced insurance premiums. The main negative aspect reported was the problem of speed

limited trucks overtaking each other over many km ("elephant" races), causing traffic back-logs.

5 Report from the Commission to the European Union Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Council

Directive 92/6/EEC of 10 February 1992 on the Installation and the Use of Speed Limitation Devices for certain

Categories of Motor Vehicles in the Community – as quoted in Transport Canada (2008)


ITF (2006)6 in his report on speed management refers to research supporting the regulation

showing positive effects on emissions and fuel consumption through prevention of over-speeding.

They also claim that illegal modification of the speed limiters continues to be a problem. It also

mentions that speeding of heavy commercial vehicles has increased in the recent years. This is

partly due to the fact that trucks are equipped with more powerful engines to handle heavier loads

and to minimise the time of the trips. The just-in-time principle adds additional pressure on speeds.

It is however not clear from the text on which research exactly these statements are based. It is also

shown that many countries, with the exception of Canada, Mexico, Norway, Russia and the United

States, have compulsory speed limiters for certain categories of heavy vehicles. ITF recommends

that in countries without mandatory speed limiters, consideration should be given to mandatory

speed limiters for trucks and coaches.

The ETSC report (2008)7 on managing speeds takes over a large part of the statements made in the

ITF report. They refer to the results of the SafetyNet project which state that ‘surplus speed’ is

noted as cause for approximately 10% of accidents with HGVs and buses. In this report there is a

preference for ISA systems over speed limiters given that the latter

- Have no effect on roads were the speed limit is lower than the speed set by the limiter and

on free-rolling downhill

- May temp drivers to always reach the maximum speed set by the limiter

- Overtaking might take long

Transport Canada (2008a)8 planned the implementation of speed limiters for HCVs and made an

international assessment to document the experiences of three participating jurisdictions (the UK,

Australia and Sweden) and studied the safety implications of mandating speed limiters for large

trucks (weight >11,794 kg) using a microscopic traffic simulation model. The main conclusions

from the international assessments were that no country had performed an assessment before

implementation or an ex-post evaluation and that the effect could not be seen directly from the

safety statistics. Compliance and enforcement issues are centred on the high incidence of

tampering, problems with testing equipment and the lack of enforcement personnel. According to

the survey, fraud was not seen as a major problem by the interviewees. The results of the traffic

simulations showed that the maximum safety gains were obtained when the speed was set at 90

km/h.

Transport Canada (2008b)9 also made a study to assess the safety implications of mandating speed

limiters for large HGVs (weight >11,794 kg) for different speed limits. A microscopic traffic

simulation model was used to compare a Crash Potential Index (CPI) for several speed limiting

scenarios, ranging from the maximum speed set between 110 to 80 km/h, for different freeway

geometrics and different traffic scenarios. This study leads to the following results:

- The introduction of a speed limiter set at 105 km/h increased safety with on average a

drop of 16% in the CPI in the uncongested region of traffic flow for all geometric

configurations and especially in the straight segments. A maximum speed set at 110 km/h

lead to less pronounced safety gains. The maximum safety gains were obtained when the

speed was set at 90 km/h.

6 ITF(2006), Speed Management 7 ETSC (2008), Managing Speed. Towards Safe and Sustainable Road Transport 8 Transport Canada (2008a), Learning from Others: An International Study on Heavy Truck Speed Limiters. 9 Transport Canada (2008b), Safety Implications of Mandated Truck Speed Limiters on Canadian Highways


- As the volumes and percentage of HGVs increased, the safety gains of 105 km/h became

less pronounced. Note that this study focussed most on the 105 km/h scenario as this was

at the time the Ontarian proposal.

- If the volume is close to capacity there are more vehicle interactions and this leads to a

reduction of safety, especially at segments with increased merging and lane changing

activity.

- As compliance increased there was a small safety effect.

A parallel investigation was done for two lane rural highways, but the results were inconclusive.

Finally, in a third paper, Transport Canada (2008c10) made an overview of the three main groups

representing the carrier industry in Canada, offering some insight into their position on mandatory

speed limiters. The three associations have very different view point. One is a strong advocate, the

other is strongly opposed and the third is also opposed but is waiting for the results of the different

studies. A case study showed that in more than 60% of the carrier fleet a speed limiter is in place.

They were initially introduced because doing so offered an opportunity to improve the efficiency of

their business by reducing operating costs (fuel and maintenance) and potentially reduce collision

risks. They were however unable to quantify these improvements since no carriers could provide

data on pre-speed limiter costs. The case study showed that none of the fleets studied appeared to

have any market disadvantage compared to their competitors as result of their speed control

policies and in fact may have an advantage associated with drivers retention and driver job

satisfaction. Based on their findings they estimate that the potential fuel savings are significant and

could be as high as 250 million Canadian dollars (about 183 million euro) for the carrier industry in

Canada. The environmental benefits are equally significant with a potential reduction of greenhouse

gas emissions up to 0.6 Mega-tonnes per year. They conclude that speed limiters may benefit

industry, government and the general public.

The CTBSSP Synthesis 16 (2008)11 examines and summarizes literature and industry information

relating to speed limiters by the use of a survey and literature research. 44% responded that speed

limiters were successful or very successful in reducing tire wear and 76% responded that speed

limiters increased fuel economy. The literature review confirmed that there is a paucity of relevant

published research on how speed limiters affect driving behaviour, especially in terms of safety.

The US department of Transportation (2012)12 researched the safety impacts of a speed limiter

device in commercial motor vehicles. The US department claims this to be the most comprehensive

investigation that has ever been conducted on speed limiters. They found that speeding was a

contributing factor in 8% of all reported large truck crashes. Based on crash data for 20 commercial

truck fleets for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 counting for about 15000 crashes, they estimated that

the speed-limiter relevant crash rate for carriers without a speed limiter was 1,94 times higher than

for the carriers with a speed limiter. A speed-limiter relevant crash rate is a crash where an active

speed limiter would be most effective in mitigating or preventing high speed truck crashes on

highways. They state that the safety benefit is large and the cost is negligible as speed limiters are

standard in new truck (and only need to be activated) and hence there is no cost increase to the

operators above the initial vehicle price.

10 Transport Canada (2008c), Speed Limiter Case Study and Industry Review, Final Report 11 CTBSSP Synthesis 16 (2008), Safety Impacts of Speed Limiter Device Installations on Commercial Trucks and Buses,

Transportation Research Board of the National Academies 12 US Department of Transportation (2012), Research on the Safety Impacts of Speed Limiter Device Installations on

Commercial Motor Vehicles: Phase II


De Vlieger ea (2005)13 estimate the effect of reducing the speed limit from 90 km/h to 80 km/h for

HGVs on motorways on CO2 and air pollutants. CO2 emissions are estimated to decrease with 5-

10%, while Particulate Matter (PM) emissions increase with 3-4% and mono-nitrogen oxides (NOx)

emissions increase with 2-3%. They also consider reduction of the speed limit for N2 vehicles to

either 90 or 80 km/h. A reduction to 90 km/h leads to a decrease in CO2 emissions with 13%, in

NOx emissions with 12 % and an increase in PM emissions with 2%. A reduction to 80 km/h

decreases CO2 emissions with 23%, NOx emissions with 18% and increases PM emissions with 4%.

However, in absolute terms the effect is smaller than decreasing the speed limit for N3 vehicles as

the share of N2 vehicles in the total emissions of HGVs is relatively small.

Accident studies on HCVs

The most important study on accidents with HGVs remains the European Truck Accident

Causation (ETAC) Study14. This study aimed at identifying the main causes of the accidents

involving HGVs based on an in depth investigation of over 600 accidents with HGVs involved. It

did not make an assessment of the influence of the Speed Limitation Directive, but it gives an

insight in the order of magnitude (%) of accidents which can be influenced by the Speed Limitation

Directive. In the top three of the main accident causes a non-adapted speed ranks first.

The TRL (2009) report analyses whether or not there is likely to be any road safety risk involved in

increasing the speed limit of HGVs exceeding 7.5 tonnes on single carriageway de-restricted roads

from 40 mph to 50 mph (or possibly 45 mph). It was estimated that only a small proportion of the

accidents would be affected by changing the speed limit.

Studies on speed limiters for LCVs

With respect to extending the Speed Limitation Directive towards LCVs two relevant studies were

found. CE Delft (2010)15 investigated the impact on safety and emissions of extending the scope of

the Directive with N1 vehicles (LGVs). The potential reduction of CO2-emissions of a speed

limiter for LGVs was estimated at about 4-5% for a speed limiter set at 110 km/h and at about 6-

7% for a speed of 100 km/h. Overall, limiting the top speed of LGVs in the EU to 100 and 110

km/h would reduce fatalities by about 190 and 110 per year, respectively.

The European Parliament (2009)16 report describes the collation and analysis of a wide range of

disparate European data on the safety of light goods vehicles (<3,5 tonnes). An important finding

of this study is the fact that data availability on LGVs is severely limited as many different

definitions are used and as many Member States did not collect information on this type of goods

vehicles. They also quote the result of the IMPROVER project in which it was shown that speed

limiters for LGVs were not considered economically viable. Referring the UK data in which only

2% of the cases exceeding the speed limit was seen as a contributory factor17, the study for the

European Parliament also concludes that introducing speed limiters such as those mandatory for

HGVs are expected to prevent only a small proportion of the aforementioned 2%, as speed limiters

13 De Vlieger ea (2005), 80 km/u maatregel voor vrachtwagens. Wetenschappelijke screening van het effect op de uitstoot

van CO2 en schadelijke emissies, Eindrapport. 14 Scientific Study ETAC: European Truck Accident Causation( ) Final Report 15 CE Delft (2010), Speed limiters for vans in Europe, Environmental and safety impacts 16 European Parliament Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department B, Structural and Cohesion Policies,

Transport and Tourism (2009), The Road Safety Performance of Commercial Light Goods Vehicles. 17 Note that in 41% of the cases no contributory factor was attributed.


would be set at the maximum speed permitted on the fasted roads. ISA would have greater

potential but also greater costs.

De Mol et al. (2009)18 argue that LCVs form a real safety problem in Belgium: between 1991 and

2007 the total number of accidents with injuries on motorways increased with 23%, while the

number of accidents with injuries with an LCV involved increased much more sharply with 83%.

They also state that the number of accidents with LCVs increased also in the Netherlands and in

Germany. On the other side, in the UK the accidents with LCVs follow the mean evolution of all

accidents. Without making a real analysis they conclude that implementing a speed limiter for LCVs

is a minimal measure.

BASt et al. (2013)19 investigated the safety of LCVs using official German road traffic accident

statistics, the accident database of German insurers (UDB) and the DEKRA as well as those of the

German In-Depth Accident Study (GIDAS). Overall, accidents involving LCVs show a similar

pattern to those involving passenger cars, although there are some differences in connection with

accidents involving pedestrians, vehicle reversing and the causes of accidents. Rear-end accidents

caused by LCVs are the most frequent types of accidents. One of the most frequent causes of

accidents are to be found in inappropriate driving speeds and lack of attention and distraction.

Especially on motorways, speed plays an important role as it represents 28% of the causes. The

report claims that these deficits cannot be adequately addressed with the technical measures of

control existing today. Speed limiters are not mentioned in the report.

Smith & Knight (2005)20 made an analysis of the accidents involving LCVs in the UK with respect

to the type of crashes, actors involved, likely causes etc. They also propose some possible

countermeasures. Fitting intelligent speed limiters was estimated to save one fatality for the four

year period covered by their sample (196.128 accidents with 419.879 vehicles and 275.829

casualties) and is not included in their list of top-countermeasures.

T&E (2005)21 focuses on the relationship between speed and CO2. Based on a literature review they

conclude that a lower speed on motorways reduces CO2 emissions and has additional positive

effects on road safety, air pollution and congestion. They also suggest some policy options, to be

considered at EU level, among which extending the speed limiter system to N1 vehicles.

2.2.3 Main conclusions from the literature review

Overall it can be concluded that assessments are scarce and not comprehensive.

With a view to the present evaluation, conclusions are as follows. Research from the US and

Canada, who are considering the implementation of speed limiter devices for HGVs, suggest that

there are clear safety and environmental benefits. With respect to the extension towards lighter

vehicles, research results are mixed. There is a scope for both environmental and safety effects, but

the measure is rated as not being primordial.

This literature is discussed in the relevant methodological sections 2.5 to 2.8.

18 De Mol et al. (2009) Abnormaal veel ongevallen met bestelwagens, Verkeersspecialist 158 19 BASt et al. (2013), Project Report, Safety of Light Commercial Vehicles 20 Smith & Knight (2005), Analysis of accidents involving light commercial vehicles in the UK 21 T&E (2005) Road Transport Speed and Climate Change, A note from Transport&Environment for CARS21 WP on

Integrated Approach


2.3 Survey, interviews and stakeholder workshop

In this section the methodology for the survey, interviews and workshop are explained. The results

of the survey and the workshop are presented in chapter 3. The relevant findings from the

interview are integrated in the sections of the chapters on ex-ante and ex-post evaluations.

The collection of available data, as well as of opinions related to the Speed Limitation Directive

implementation and its possible amendments, was realised by means of a comprehensive

questionnaire survey sent to from Member States competent authorities and significant

stakeholders. The survey responses were supplemented by telephone interviews to improve

response rates and to enrich questionnaire responses. The survey was targeted to the responsible

offices within the Member States government departments and/or the concerned national

authorities. In addition, safety experts and European stakeholder organisations (such as IRU,

ACEA, T&E, etc.) were included in the survey.

Opinions of road transport operators for both freight and passenger in relation to the market

impacts of the Directive application and on its possible amendment were collected by means of

direct interviews conducted by the project team.

The final step of the stakeholders’ involvement consisted of a Stakeholder Conference in Brussels.

The conference offered them the opportunity to provide input to the study and give feedback on

the draft results. A broad range of stakeholder organizations and Member States and a

representative selection of stakeholders attended the meeting in Brussels.

2.3.1 The survey

The questionnaire for the Member States can be found in Annex 1. It includes both a quantitative

part, mainly aiming at collecting data to measure the impacts of the Speed Limitation Directive, and

a qualitative one, with the purpose to gather views and recommendations on the problems occurred

in the implementation of the current Speed Limitation Directive and on the possible amendments.

The slightly simplified questionnaire prepared for experts and stakeholder organisations is included

in Annex 2.

The questionnaire includes a range of open and closed questions on the following themes:

Application of the Speed Limitation Directive;

Availability of studies on the impacts of the Directive;

Options for the amendment of the Directive.

Furthermore, the questionnaire asks for the availability of detailed national data on:

HGV fleet according to vehicle category and total maximum mass (preferably with data for

category N2 split in vehicles of less/more than 7.5 tonnes).

Data on vehicle and traffic speeds (particularly speed profiles) and data on accidents

involvement that can complement the CARE database (see section 2.6.2). These include

statistics for HGVs and buses in general, M2 and N2 vehicles in particular and, when

available, even data on N2 vehicles with maximum mass equal to 7.5 tonnes or less. For all

of these, time series were requested, including years before and after 2005, number and

gravity of accidents and data on the influence of speed on accident rates.

Relevant national policies, other than those implementing the Speed Limitation Directive,

that may have had significant impacts on accident rates and accident impacts, with

particular attention to the vehicle categories mentioned above.


Enforcement of rules and controls performed on the compliance with regulatory

obligations (procedure for controls, frequency, rate of frauds).

Evidence of shifts between vehicle categories (particularly from HCVs to LCVs) and other

market impacts.

Response and completion rates were closely monitored. Missing responses were followed up by

email and telephone after a suitable period of time has elapsed. Responses that were unclear were

followed up and clarified by email or telephone.

More details on the respondents and topics covered can be found in Chapter 3.

2.3.2 The interviews to transport operators

Additional interviews were carried out with road transport operators operating at EU scale

specialised in both freight and passenger transport and covering different types of services (e.g.

coach tourism, regular long-distance passenger lines, specialised services for disabled people with

minibuses, specialised delivery services with LGV and express delivery services). These telephonic

interviews were aimed at getting first-hand information on the impacts experienced by transport

operators in the implementation of the Speed Limitation Directive and also about their reaction to

the proposed amendment of the Directive. Particular attention was paid to the international

operators of fleets with both HGVs and LGVs. Table 2-2 lists the companies that have been

interviewed. These interviewees were not aimed to be fully representative, as they were merely used

as an additional data sources to complement and triangulate data collected through other means.

Table 2-2: List of transport companies that has been interviewed (by telephone)

Road freight transport:

- Withofs, Belgium

- Consea (subcontractor of DHL, UPS, TNT), Italy

- Wim Bosman Transport, the Netherlands

- Seacon Logistics, the Netherlands

- Ewals, Belgium

Road passenger transport:

- Marino Autolinee, Italy

- Baglivi Tours, Italy

- Buccarella, Italy

2.3.3 The Stakeholder Conference

A Stakeholder Conference was organised in Brussels to present the preliminary results of the

survey, the draft results of the ex-post evaluation of the current Directive and the methodology for

the ex-ante evaluations of various scenarios for amending the Directive (either for Heavy

Commercial Vehicles or by extending the scope to Light Commercial Vehicles). The discussion was

structured along a set of questions per topic used as the starting point for the debate. The minutes

of the workshop were published on the website of the European Commission.22

22 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/sld_10_06_2013/minutes.pdf


2.4 General assumptions and data used

2.4.1 Geographical scope

The geographical scope of the evaluation is the EU27 given that all Member States have adopted

the Speed Limitation Directive over time.

Data on speed limits for each country is available on the European Commission Road Safety Going

Abroad Website23. The resulting table can be found in Annex 3. Note that the speed limit set can

be higher or lower than the speed of the speed limiter.

For urban roads, the speed limit is in general the same for all types of vehicles and set at 50 km/h.

Only in Malta and the UK the speed limits are lower. Furthermore, in some countries such as for

example in Belgium and the Netherlands, different speed limits apply on certain parts of the urban

road network ranging from 30 km/h up to 70 km/h.

For non-urban roads there is much more variation between the different countries with speed limits

varying between 60 and 100 km/h, but with most speed limits set at 90 km/h for M1/N1 vehicles

and 90 or 80 for N2/N3 vehicles and M2/M3 vehicles.

On motorways and expressways the largest differences can be found between the different types of

vehicles. For M1/N1 vehicles most speed limits vary between 120-130 km/h, for N2/N3 vehicles

around 80/90 km/h and for M2/M3 vehicles around 90/100 km/h.

Given the differences in speed limits between countries, the analysis of impacts on speeds was

carried out at country level.

2.4.2 Reference years

It is not possible to use a single reference year for assessing the impacts of the Speed Limitation

Directive.

The first stage of an EU legislation on speed limitation devices was set in 1992 by Directive

92/6/EEC which required speed limitation devices to be installed on N3 vehicles (heavy goods

vehicles –HGVs - with maximum mass above 12 tonnes) and on M3 vehicles (buses) above 10

tonnes. In 2002, this Directive was amended by Directive 2002/85/EC, which obliged also N2

vehicles (smaller HGVs with maximum mass between 3.5 and 12 tonnes) and M2 vehicles (buses

with more than eight seats plus the driver's one with maximum mass exceeding 5 tonnes) to be

equipped with speed limiters.

However, in both cases the actual implementation of the Speed Limitation Directive did not

happen overnight. Depending on the year of registration and the use of the vehicles (national and

international transport versus exclusively national transport) the year of implementation is

different24.

23 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/going_abroad/index_en.htm 24 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0006:en:NOT and http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32002L0085&model=g

uichett

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/going_abroad/index_en.htm

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0006:en:NOT

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32002L0085&model=guichett




- For M3 having a mass of more than 10 tonnes and N3 vehicles:

o To vehicles registered as from 1/1/1994, implementation is mandatory as from

1/1/1994.

o To vehicles registered between 1/1/1988 and 1994.

From 1/1/1995, in case of use for national and international transport.

From 1/1/1996, in case of use for exclusively national transport.

- For M2 and M3 having a mass between 5 and 10 tonnes and N2 vehicles

o To vehicles registered as from 1/1/2005, implementation is mandatory as from

1/1/2005.

o To vehicles registered between 1/10/2001 and 1/1/2005.

From 1/1/2006, in case of use for national and international transport.

From 1/1/2007, in case of use for exclusively national transport.

o Moreover, for a period of no more than three years from 1/1/2005, any Member

state could exempt from the provisions for the M2 and N2 (between 3.5-7.5

tonnes).

- The countries accessing the EU at a later stage also received some additional time in order

to comply with the Speed Limitation Directive.

Overall, we could state that by 1/1/1996 all M3 (>10 tonnes) and all N3 registered in Belgium,

France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Ireland, UK, Greece, Portugal

and Spain were equipped with speed limitation devices. Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU

in 1995, hence the effective implementation date was most likely comparable. For the countries

joining in 2004 (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland,

Slovakia and Slovenia) and in 2007 (Romania, Bulgaria), the implementation must have been much

later.

For the M2 and N2 vehicles we could assume that by 2008 all vehicles in the EU27 were equipped

with the speed limitation devices. Given the legislation, all N2 and M2 vehicles should have been

equipped with a speed limitation device by 2007 in Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the

Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Ireland, UK, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Austria, Finland and

Sweden. Given the date of entry to the EU and the date of legislation this should also be true for

Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.

The date of implementation might be a bit later for Romania and Bulgaria. Note that all of the

above countries could ask for an exemption, but this was only possible until 2008.

Moreover, the length of the time series is limited to 1995-2011, making an analysis for the N3 and

M3 impossible for the older member states. Analysis of impacts for older Member States in the ex-

post evaluation is thus limited to the impacts of introducing speed limiters in N2 and M2 vehicles.

Given the method used further – taking averages over different years – the limited length does not

allow selecting a single reference year.

For the ex-post evaluation, impacts of the Speed Limitation Directive were evaluated on a country

level and for the EU aggregate. For some countries data is available for the period 1995-2001, for

others the time period covered is shorter. For the analysis on a country level, given the time of

likely implementation discussed before, we focus on the period 2005-2006 for the “older” Member

States, while for the countries joining in 2004 and 2007 any possible changes in accident rates were

likely to occur in the period right after their accession (around 2004 or 2007 depending on the

country). We also aggregated the data on the EU level. Given the most likely implementation dates

for most of the EU countries we focus for this aggregate on possible changes in the data around

2005-2008.


For the ex-ante evaluation, there is no need for a reference year given that the methodology used in

the present study constructs results on the basis of the relative changes brought by the fictive

implementation of different scenarios compared to a reference scenario. When calculating absolute

numbers, the modelling exercise starts from the average number of accidents over the last three

years and data on total emissions from TREMOVE (i.e. the reference scenario, see also section

2.7.2 and 2.8.4).

2.4.3 Data basis with respect to vehicle kilometres

In the frame of the present study, an important element determining the absolute levels of

emissions and safety25 is the total number of vehicle-kilometre driven. However, there is no data

available on the number of vehicle-kilometres which differentiates between the different M/N

vehicles classes. Moreover, up to now there is no consistent data source for vehicle-kilometres26.

For freight transport data is usually expressed in ton-kilometres, while data for buses are generally

expressed in passenger-km.

An important element determining the absolute levels of emissions and safety27 are the total

number of vehicle-kilometre driven. However, there is no data available on the number of vehicle-

kilometres that is differentiated to the different M/N classes. Moreover, up to now there is no

consistent data source for vehicle-kilometres28. For freight transport data is usually expressed in

ton-kilometres, while data for buses are generally expressed in passenger-km.

The Statistical Pocketbook for Transport 201329 provides data on the total number of ton-

kilometres based on the nationality principle (national and international haulage, including cross-

border trade and cabotage) of heavy goods vehicles (usually 3.5 tonnes load capacity) by vehicles

registered in the reporting country for the years 1995-2011. For the assessment of accidents, the

total number of vehicle-kilometres driven in a certain country would be of more relevance. This

data, although expressed in ton-kilometres, is available on Eurostat for the years 2008-201130.

For the period 1995-2011, the number of vehicle-kilometres driven in a certain country is calculated

as follows:

- The starting point is the number of ton-kilometres for the period 1995-2011 as reported by

the Statistical Pocketbook for Transport 2013.

- Ton-kilometres as reported for 1995-2007 by registered countries based on the nationality

principle are converted into ton-kilometres driven in a certain country based on the

territorial principle by using multipliers based on the Eurostat data on ton-kilometres

(2013) for 2008-2009. For 1995-2007 we applied the 2008 multiplier; for 2010-2011 we

applied the 2009 multiplier. Overall this means that the number of ton-kilometres based on

the territorial principle will be different than the number of ton-kilometres based on the

nationality principle.

25 Eenink ea (2008) Accident Prediction Models and Road Safety Impact Assessment: recommendations for using these

tools, RIPCORD-ISEREST Deliverable 2 26 We compared data on vkm from Eurostat, UNECE, ITF and the TREMOVE model. 27 Eenink ea (2008) Accident Prediction Models and Road Safety Impact Assessment: recommendations for using these

tools, RIPCORD-ISEREST Deliverable 2 28 We compared data on vkm from Eurostat, UNECE, ITF and the TREMOVE model. 29 European Commission(2013), EU transport in figures, statistical pocketbook 2013,

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics/pocketbook-2013_en.htm 30 Eurostat – last update 15/1/2013: National annual transport by group of goods and type of transport (in 1000 tonnes

and million ton-kilometres), from 2008 onwards.


- Ton-kilometres are converted into vehicle-kilometres by using the loading factors from

TREMOVE.

As there are only a limited number of multipliers available, this calculation only provides a very

rough approach of the number of vehicle-kilometres driven in a country. Longer time series are not

available at Eurostat due to the difficulties and uncertainties in calculating these numbers. The main

difficulties are caused by the many changes in the composition of the European Union over time.

Each time a country accessed the European Union, ton-kilometres previously driven outside of the

European Union became internal.

The calculation also only has a limited impact on the time series analysis described further in the

text as the multipliers are quite fixed over time. It does however allow for a better understanding of

the real accident risk in a country (total number of accident compared with the number of vehicle-

km driven in a certain country), which is important for transit countries such as for example

Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany.

For the calculation of bus-kilometres a similar approach was used. The Statistical Pocketbook

Transport 2013 provides data on passenger- kilometres for all countries starting from 1995. For

some countries data is available also for the period 1990-1994. Again the passenger- kilometres are

attributed to the country where the bus is registered (nationality principle). Eurostat provides

vehicle-kilometres for nine countries (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Spain,

Sweden and the UK), on national territory for the period 2007-2010. CE Delft also gathered this

information for Germany, France and the Netherlands from the national statistical offices.

Data on vehicle-kilometres for buses are calculated for the period 1995-2011 in the following way:

- Starting point are the passenger-kilometres for the period 1995-2011 as reported by the

Statistical Pocketbook 2013.

- Passenger-kilometres are converted into vehicle-kilometres by using the loading factors

from TREMOVE. These vehicle-kilometres are based on the nationality principle.

- The vehicle-kilometres based on nationality principle are converted into vehicle-kilometres

based on territorial principle for the 12 countries for which data is available. The multiplier

for the year 2011 equals the multiplier of 2010 and the multipliers for the period 1995-2006

were set equal to the multiplier of 2007.

- Given the large differences which are observed between the multipliers for these twelve

countries, the data for the other countries is not corrected (multiplier varies from about

70% for Belgium to 180% for the UK).

2.5 Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA)

Within the ex-ante analysis, ISA is one of the options within the different scenarios. In this section

we briefly explain the main characteristics of the system and its possible effects.

Intelligent Speed Adaptation/Assistance (ISA) is an example of an advanced driver assistance

system (ADAS). An ADAS is a system that aims at supporting the driver during the driving process

through the use of safe human-machine interfaces. ISA systems focus on supporting drivers’ speed

choices. Different types of ISA exist and have potentially different impacts on speed choice, safety,

emissions, driving comfort and road usage.

ISA has been the subject of both theoretical and practical studies over the past two decades. For

studies in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Australia

and France documentation is readily available describing possible effects on safety and


environment, but also allowing for an analysis of potential risks, barriers and solutions31 . These

studies focus mostly on the impacts of ISA for passenger cars.

The successful implementation of any ISA system is linked to the amount of intrusion the system

performs on free driving speed choice, acceptance (both in terms of “buy-in” as in terms of

“usage”), effectiveness and the timeframe of implementation.

ISA and the ITS Directive

The introduction of ISA systems can be aligned with the numerous attention points identified and

efforts made within the context of the so-called ITS directive, Directive 2010/40/EU 32. Indeed,

ISA is a cooperative in-vehicle safety system and as such different aspects thereof fall under the ITS

Directive. The deployment of ISA requires the collection, registration and updating of speed limit

information, and could use real-time communication between vehicles and infrastructure. The

priority actions and actions taken within this Directive can have a strong influence on the

introduction and effectiveness of ISA systems for different vehicle types (for example: the

availability of existing road data used for digital maps, timely updating, etc.). A further analysis of

the link between ISA and the ITS Directive falls outside of the projects’ scope. However, we do

note that the findings of the current project could also be reported to the European ITS Advisory

Group.

2.5.1 Components of an ISA system

An ISA system typically consists of three components. These components can be built into the

vehicle, or be provided as an after-market system.

Component 1: Speed and location monitoring system

Component 2: Set speed information comparison

Component 3: A feedback system

The speed monitoring system (component 1) is responsible for providing information on the

current location of the vehicle as well as the speed that the vehicle is running at. This information is

typically provided by a GPS system (location) in combination with vehicle data input (CANBUS or

similar).

This information is compared to a set speed (component 2). This set speed can be provided

through the combination of GPS coordinates with map information containing mandatory speed

limits, vertical road sign recognition (speed signs) or other sources of information.

31 Brookhuis, K, & de Waard, D. (1999). Limiting speed, towards an intelligent speed adapter (ISA). Transportation

Research Part F 2 (1999), pp. 81-90. Carsten, O.M.J., & Tate, F.N. (2005). Intelligent speed adaptation: accident savings

and cost-benefit analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37, pp 407-416. Vlassenroot, A., Broeckx, S., De Mol, J., Int

Panis, L., Brijs, T. & Wets, G. (2007). Driving with intelligent speed adaptation: Final results of the Belgian ISA-trial.

Transportation Research Part A, 41, pp. 267-279. Monash university (2006). On-road evaluation of intelligent speed

adaptation, following distance warning and seatbelt reminder systems: Final results of the TAC SafeCar Project. Varhilyi,

A., Hjälmdahl, M., Hydén, C., & Draskoczy, M. (2004). Effects of an active accelerator pedal on driver behaviour and

traffic safety after long-term use in urban areas. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, pp. 729-737. Päätalo, M., Peltola,

H., & Kallio, M. (2001). Intelligent speed adaptation – effet on driving behaviour. In: Proceedings of the European

Working Group on Speed Control, Aalborg. 32 Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the

deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of

transport.


The driver receives information on the set speed through visual, auditory or haptic channels

(component 3). A comparison between set speed and driven speed can take place before the

feedback is presented.

2.5.2 Types of ISA

Nine different types of ISA systems can be identified based on two characteristics: the system type

and the type of speed limit information.

With respect to the system type, three different types can be distinguished: advisory, voluntary and

intervening:

In the advisory or informing system the speed limits are visually presented to the driver

(mostly when changes in speed regimes are present). The driver is only informed on the

speed limits and there is no warning when the speed exceeds the posted speed limit. The

driver is free to adjust his speed. This system is currently being offered as an option in

some passenger cars.

For the voluntary or driver select system we distinguish between systems which merely

present a warning through visual or auditory means when the speed exceeds the posted

speed limit (open) and more intervening systems where the drivers is presented with tactile

feedback through the accelerator pedal when exceeding the speed limit (half open). Where

in the first system the driver is free to adjust his speed, he experiences in the second system

a higher pressure required on the operation of the accelerator pedal to increase driving

speed.

The third system is called intervening or mandatory system, as the maximum speed of

the vehicle is automatically limited to the posted (set) speed that is in force on that

particular location. Remaining driver input is ignored. Additional feedback can be

presented to the driver by limiting throttle input (strong haptic feedback or dead throttle).

With respect to the type of speed limit information, fixed, variable and dynamic information can be

distinguished. With fixed speed limit information, the basis for the speed comparison is the posted

speed limit. With variable speed limit information, the basis for the speed comparison is extended

to variable speed information for special situations (road works, dangerous areas, black spots, etc.).

With dynamic speed limit information, the basis for the speed comparison is extended to location

specific situations (road works, traffic density, etc.) and time specific situations (weather, lighting,

etc.).

For each of the nine types of ISA systems, different levels of technological advancement and

legislation need to be considered, making some systems more likely to be introduced on a large

scale than others.

Table 2-3 presents an overview of technological feasibility in which we rank the feasibility of

implementation within a short term from o to ++:

- o: no direct implementation, today in research phase

- +: implementation within a short term possible

- ++: already in use today


Table 2-3: Overview technological feasibility ISA system

Technology

Speed limit information

Fixed Variable Dynamic

Level of speed choice

Advisory/informing ++ * + * o ***

Voluntary - Warning (open) ++ * + * o ***

Voluntary - Half-open

intervening + ** + ** o ***

Intervening/mandatory + ** + ** o ***

- * These systems are already offered in consumer vehicles (passenger cars) and can

be purchased on a voluntary basis.

- ** These systems are or have already been the subject of extensive field testing.

- *** Although the technology is theoretically available, there is no mention of explicit

field testing.

Apart from technological feasibility, there are also legal issues which play a role. Table 2-4 focuses

on the liability question and again ranks the different systems from 0 to ++, where

- o: problems with liability will arise, given the current legislation.

- +: possible problems with liability, given the current legislation

- ++: no problems with respect to liability, given the current legislation

Table 2-4: Overview legal feasibility (focussing on liability) ISA systems

Legislation

Speed limit information

Fixed Variable Dynamic

Level of speed choice

Advisory/informing ++ * ++ * + **

Voluntary - Warning (open) ++ * ++ * + **

Voluntary - Half-open intervening

+ *** o ***** o *****

Intervening/mandatory o **** o ***** o *****

- * These systems are already offered in consumer vehicles (passenger cars) and can

be purchased on a voluntary basis.

- ** The communication of variable information from third parties (i.e. weather

information, traffic congestion information, accident location information) is a point of

attention.

- *** Driver feedback systems need to provide clear-cut information that cannot be

misinterpreted nor cause driver overloading. At the time of writing, no clear legislation

exists on who can be held responsible in case of accidents, nor is the intensity of driver

feedback standardized.

- **** Driver feedback systems need to provide clear-cut information that cannot be

misinterpreted nor cause driver overloading through input conflict. At the time of writing, no

clear legislation exists on who can be held responsible in case of accidents, nor is the

intensity of driver feedback standardized.

- ***** The communication of variable information from third parties (i.e. weather

information, traffic congestion information, accident location information) is a point of

attention. Driver feedback systems need to provide clear-cut information that cannot be

misinterpreted nor cause driver overloading. At the time of writing, no clear legislation


exists on who can be held responsible in case of accidents, nor is the intensity of driver

feedback standardized.

For both HCVs as for LCVs, there could potentially also be problems with the type approval of the

speed limitation devices as today there does not exist a type approved ISA system.

2.5.3 Possible effects of ISA

The possible effects of ISA have been extensively researched. Most relevant for this work are the

effects on speed and the expected effects on safety and emissions and congestion. Each of these is

discussed below.

Effect on speed and speed distribution

With respect to the speed, almost all laboratory and field trials indicate that a speed reduction effect

can be found33. This effect increases according to the level of intrusion that the system is allowed to

have34. In some field trials however, an adverse effect on acceleration is reported. It is suspected

that drivers use the haptic feedback that is presented as a secondary source of information on

vehicle speed and anticipate on this. As such, this is potentially an unwanted effect of the chosen

human-machine interaction35. Detailed speed profiles or speed distributions are seldom presented.

In some cases, a Gaussian curve is presented where the mean average speed is lower as well as the

spread of vehicle speeds ran (smaller standard deviations) 36. Carslaw et al. (2010)37 do present the

speed distribution of vehicle speeds for 70 mph roads for a vehicle without ISA and a vehicle with

an intervening/mandatory system. For the base case without ISA the median speed is just below

the speed limit and there is a long tail of higher speeds. The distribution with a

intervening/mandatory system clearly shows a sharp cut-off in the speed distribution at the speed

limit.

Effects on safety

Most field trials mention the potential safety related effect of ISA systems, but given the relative

low number of participants it is difficult to present statistically significant differences38. Paine M. et

al. (2009)39 made a review of several ISA trials and estimated the potential road safety benefits for

Australia. They found that the technology is ready for widespread implementation and that

extensive trials throughout the world demonstrated the potential for significant accident savings.

They estimate that top-speed limiting of cars can reduce 1% of all serious crashes (the number of

crashes happening at a speed larger than 120 km/h).

33 ETSC (2009). Speed fact sheet: ITS and speed: accelerating the deployment of intelligent transport systems for speed

management. 34 DTV Consultants (2012). Snelheidsslot en snelheidsmonitor: evaluatierapport.

35 Vlassenroot, S. (2008). Speed management through vehicle measures, Intelligent Transport Systems and Intelligent

Speed Assistance. 36 Saint Pierre, G., & Ehrlich, J. (2008). Impact of Intelligent Speed Adaptation systems on fuel consumption and driver

behaviour. In proceedings of 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems and ITS America's 2008 Annual

Meeting. 37 Carslaw D.C. ea (2010), Comprehensive analysis of the carbon impacts of vehicle intelligent control, Atmospheric

Environment 44, p. 2674-2680 38 SWOV (2010). SWOV Fact sheet: Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) 39 Paine, M. ea (2009), Speed limiting trials in Australia

http://trid.trb.org/results.aspx?q=&datein=all&serial=%2215th%20World%20Congress%20on%20Intelligent%20Transport%20Systems%20and%20ITS%20America%27s%202008%20Annual%20Meeting%22



Most studies present a clear indication of reductions in speed limit violations (speeding infractions).

Kloeden et al. 40 showed that speeding leads to an increased accident risk. The study performed

within the PROSPER project (Carsten & Tate41) offers a clear overview of expected estimates: Table

2-5 shows that the higher the level of intervention by the ISA system, the higher the expected

reduction in crashes is.

Table 2-5: Safety impacts of various types of ISA systems

Type of ISA Type of speed limit

Best estimate of

reduction of injury crashes

Best estimate of

reduction of fatal and severe injury crashes

Best estimate of reduction of fatal crashes

Advisory

Fixed

Variable

Dynamic

10%

10%

13%

14%

14%

18%

18%

19%

24%

Voluntary

Fixed

Variable

Dynamic

10%

11%

18%

15%

16%

26%

19%

20%

32%

Intervening

Fixed

Variable

Dynamic

20%

22%

36%

29%

31%

48%

37%

39%

59%

Source: Carsten & Tate (2005), see footnote on previous page.

The results of an extensive, more recent study by Carsten at al. (2008)42 are shown in Table 2-6. It

also presents the expected reduction of accidents as a result of ISA systems.

Table 2-6: Safety impacts of various types of ISA systems

Type of ISA Accident Severity Total

Fatal Serious Slight

Advisory 9% 4% 2% 2%

Voluntary 25% 19% 10% 11%

Intervening 44% 40% 25% 27%

Source: Carsten et al. (2008)

40 Kloeden, C. N., McLean, A. J., Moore, V. M. & Ponte, G. (1997) Travelling speed and the rate of crash involvement.

Volume 1: findings. Report No. CR 172. Federal Office of Road Safety FORS, Canberra 41 Carsten, O.M.J., & Tate, F.N. (2005). Intelligent speed adaptation: accident savings and cost-benefit analysis. Accident

Analysis and Prevention, 37, pp 407-416. Lai, Carsten and Tate (2012) How much benefit does ISA deliver: an analysis of

its potential contribution to safety and environment, Accident Analysis and Prevention 48, 63-72. Carslaw D.C. ea (2010)

Comprehensive analysis of carbon impacts of vehicle intelligent control. Atmospheric Environment 44, P2674-2680 42 Carsten, Lai, Chorlton,Goodman, Carslaw & Hess (2008), Speed Limit Adherence and its effect on road safety and

climate change, Final Report.


The study by Lai et al. (2012)43 made a distinction between road types. The largest effect is to be

expected on roads with a 40-50 mph speed limit. Table 2-7 show the shares of accidents which

remain after the installation of an ISA system, compared to the number of accidents before

installation of the ISA.

Table 2-7: Predicted accident reduction rates for cars by ISA variant and road type

Road type ISA variant

Speed limit

20 mph 30 mph 40 mph 50 mph 60 mph 70 mph

Unclassified roads

Advisory

Voluntary

Intervening

5%

1%

62%

2%

20%

41%

3%

47%

61%

2%

9%

9%

0%

4%

4%

-

-

-

B roads*

Advisory

Voluntary

Intervening

0.88

0.70

0.57

0.98

0.76

0.59

0.96

0.76

0.59

0.88

0.85

0.82

0.93

0.88

0.87

-

-

-

A roads*

Advisory

Voluntary

Intervening

-

-

-

0.98

0.90

0.46

0.98

0.73

0.42

0.87

0.84

0.73

0.89

0.81

0.77

0.97

0.96

0.87

Motorways

Advisory

Voluntary

Intervening

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.98

0.74

0.32

0.84

0.95

0.66

-

-

-

0.92

0.86

0.75

* B roads are numbered local roads in the UK, which have lower traffic densities than the main truck roads, or A roads. A

roads are the main trunk and primary roads.

Source: Lai ea (2012)

Effect on emissions and congestion

One of the reoccurring findings in relation to the use of ISA systems is the reduction in speed

variation within and between drivers. Although this can possibly be linked with reduced emissions

in CO2, NOx or other pollutants, this link is not always found. In some speed conditions, the

expected decreases could be found while in other increased emissions were found44. Carslaw et al.

(2010) state that the only significant effect on CO2 is to be found on motorways with a reduction of

about 6%. Table 2-8 shows how the effect changes with respect to the speed limit and the type of

ISA implemented. . The 6% reduction can be found back in this table for a mandatory ISA system

on motorways at a speed of 112 km/h.

43 Lai, Carsten & Tate (2012), How much benefit does ISA deliver: an analysis of its potential contribution to safety and

environment, Accident Analysis and Prevention 48, 63-72

44 Saint Pierre, G., & Ehrlich, J. (2008). Impact of Intelligent Speed Adaptation systems on fuel consumption and driver

behaviour. In proceedings of 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems and ITS America's 2008 Annual

Meeting.




Table 2-8: Results CO2 emission analysis

Speed limit Baseline CO2 (mean

g/km) Voluntary ISA - change Mandatory ISA change

32 km/h 222.1 0.0 ±0.5% 0.1 ±0.6%

48 km/h 185.1 -0.4 ±0.3% -0.4 ±0.3%

64 km/h 164.0 -1.2 ±0.1% -1.2 ±0.3%

96 km/h 148.2 0.3 ±0.1% 0.3 ±0.1%

112 km/h 170.8 -3.4 ±0.3% -5.8 ±0.7%

Source: Carsten et al. 2008

Another effect that is reported is the usage of the ISA system as a source of tertiary information on

vehicle speed. In some cases, drivers are reported to use the haptic feedback from the accelerator

pedal to estimate driving speed, allowing for a faster acceleration when the speed limit changes.

This could possible improve the usage of the available road infrastructure (higher densities) 45.

However, no decreases in travel time were reported. In high traffic density conditions, ISA is not

expected to significantly influence travel times since congestion is the main factor influencing travel

time. In low traffic density conditions, ISA would increase travel time since the maximum speed is

limited by the set speed.

ISA and HCVs

At this time, it needs to be remarked that all these findings are mostly the results of studies where

ISA systems were applied to private cars and (public transport) buses. Only one pilot study was

found where an ISA system was reportedly used on a HGV46. The system used was of the

following type “mandatory system – fixed speed limit”. A manual override system was in place.

Although it is hard to generalise the results of this study as only one vehicle and one driver was

involved, it is worth noting that a change in the speed distribution curves for different speed

regimes was reported. Mostly, excessive speeding was avoided with the ISA system.

In Carsten et al. (2008) 47 a micro-simulation model was used to estimate the safety effects of ISA

on HGVs. The use of a simulation model is due to the fact that the field trial only included one real

life example which was not enough to draw any lessons from. Given that a speed limiter is currently

mandatory for HGVs, it is assumed that ISA has no effect on motorways and certain rural dual

carriageways where speed limits on the road are higher than speed limit set by the speed limitation

device. Speed distributions with and without ISA were calculated and next the effect on accident

risk was estimated using the formula of Kloeden (see impacts on safety on p. 27). They noted that

this is a conservative estimate as the weight effect is not taken into account. The results are

presented in Table 2-9

Table 2-9: Predicted accident reduction ratios for HGVs by ISA variant

ISA variant Urban (30 mph) Rural single carriageway (40 mph)

Advisory 0.991 0.981

Voluntary 0.951 0.955

Intervening 0.483 0.216

Source: Carsten et al. 2008

45 Vlassenroot, S. (2008). Speed management through vehicle measures, Intelligent Transport Systems and Intelligent

Speed Assistance. 46 Lai, F., Chorlton, K., Simpkin, B. & Fowkes, M. (2007). ISA-UK Intelligent Speed Adaptation – Results of Truck Trial.. 47 Carsten ea (2008), Speed Limit Adherence and its Effect on Road Safety and Climate Change, Final Report


Given that these are micro-simulation results, Carsten et al. (2008) decided not to use results above,

but to use the same reduction ratios as for cars in the remainder of their analysis (see Table 2-8 on

p. 40).

2.5.4 Future evolutions of ISA

ISA systems are subject of further research and could be considered for specific situations,

independent of the safety aspects:

- Driver-dependent: ISA is in some cases considered as a driving aid specifically for

inexperienced drivers.

- Weather-dependent speed choice.

- Vehicle interaction:

o Optimizing road usage through the reduction of inter-vehicle speed differences.

o Optimizing cross-road interactions through the adaptation of vehicle speed for

interacting/intersecting vehicle flows.

In this study, however, only short to medium term applications of ISA are relevant. For both the

HCV and LCV ex-ante evaluation, two ISA types have been selected. The time horizon considered

is about 5 years; only technologies that could be applied within this period were considered. When

assessing various ISA systems, it has been taken into account that digital road maps are an

important condition for ISA to function and the maps would require regular updating. Liability of

the driver is also an issue, given that he should keep control over his vehicle. In this context it is not

clear whether active ISA systems could be implemented as alternative to speed limiters or whether

only supportive systems are a possible alternative. The definition of the scenarios with ISA systems

are presented in section 5.2.2 (HCVs) and 6.3.2 (LCVs).

2.6 Speed impacts

2.6.1 Introduction

In this study, a key question is how the speed was and will be affected by the introduction or

adjustment of the speed limiter. The effect on speed determines the impact on road safety and

emissions and is also important for the market impacts. In this section, the relevant aspects on

speed are introduced and it is explained how these can be modelled.

Both the speed distribution and speed profiles with and without a speed limiter are relevant.

Important characteristics of the speed distribution are the absolute speed and speed dispersion. By

the absolute speed we mean either the speed of an individual vehicle, or the average speed of the

traffic flow. The speed dispersion is a measure for the differences in speeds between individual

vehicles that are part of the traffic flow or is the variation in speeds for all vehicles over a road

segment. The speed profile is the speed as a function of time of a specific vehicle.

For the assessment, data is required on the speed distribution and speed profile per combination of

road type, vehicle type and speed limit. Speed distributions and speed profiles with and without a

speed limiter are determined. This is done by analysing information on actual speed distributions

for various EU Member States. Next, appropriate speed profiles have been selected/constructed

for the same road and vehicle types and for which the average speeds match with the average

speeds of these speed distributions.


It should be noted that data on speed distributions is scarce. For HCVs there is particularly very

few data on speed distributions in cases without speed limiters. Therefore, extrapolation of

available data is needed.

In the following sections first the definitions of the different concepts used are introduced in

section 2.6.2 and 2.6.3. Next the data on average speeds, speed distributions and speed profiles with

and without a speed limiter are presented in 2.6.4, 2.6.5 and 2.6.6. Finally in 2.6.7, the definition of

Member States with high and low posted speed limits is explained as used in the presentation of the

impacts on safety and in the analysis of emission impacts.

2.6.2 Definition and use of speed distribution

For the analysis of impacts, both the average speeds and distribution of speeds are important.

The speed distribution is the arrangement of speeds driven according to their frequency of

occurrence on the road. It can be modelled by assuming that, in the case without speed limiters, the

desired driving speed is normally distributed. Many studies48 use this approach for modelling the

speed of vehicles. For each vehicle type, the speed distribution is different depending on the road

type and speed limit. An example of the speed distribution for one vehicle category is given in

Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1: A typical speed distribution for one vehicle category showing commonly used parameters,

adopted from Taylor et al. (2000)

The speed distribution has two main speed characteristics, the absolute speed and the speed

dispersion. The absolute speed is either the speed of an individual vehicle, or the average speed

48 e.g. Roszbach, R. & Blokpoel, A. (1991) Veiligheidseffecten van de invoering van 100- en 120 km/uur

snelheidslimieten op autosnelwegen: vervolg van de evaluatiestudie. R-91-95 SWOV , Taylor ea (2000), The effects of

drivers’ speed on the frequency of road accidents, TRL Report No 421, , Hohnscheid (2006) Impact assessment of the

measures concerning the improvement of road safety of light goods vehicles (LGV), Final report of Subproject 2.

IMPROVER project


(or mean) of the traffic flow. In the example the latter is 85 km/h. The speed dispersion (or

speed variance) relates to the differences in speeds between individual vehicles that are part of the

traffic flow. The measure used for the speed dispersion is the speed deviation (or the standard

deviation of speed). This is a statistical measure (standard deviation) of the spread in values, applied

to speeds. In the example this is 5 km/h. Other measures concerning the speed dispersion are the

85th percentile (15% of the speeds are above this speed), the proportion of speeders and the mean

speed of speeders. For this study the average speed and speed deviation are important.

2.6.3 Definition and use of speed profiles

The speed profile shows the variation in speed for an individual vehicle over time. In reality, every

vehicle will have a different speed profile. This depends on many factors such as the driving

behaviour, weather, traffic lights, congestion, etc. The speed profiles are important for assessment

of the emission impacts of speed and therefore one or more speed profiles have to be assumed to

be representative for the real-world driving speeds.

Figure 2-2 shows an example of a speed profile. On the horizontal axis the time is shown. The

graph displays the speed of the vehicle in meters per second (m/s). A speed profile can be

characterized by an average speed and a deviation.

It should be noted that for a given combination of vehicle type and road type, the deviation of the

speed distribution and the deviation of the speed profile can be different. The first one is a measure

of the differences in speeds between various users, while the second is a measure for the variation

in speed over time for a single average user. On motorways (without congestion), the deviation in

the speed profile will generally be low, while the deviation in speed distributions can be quite large

because of the difference between slow vehicles (HGVs) and faster vehicles (cars). On the other

hand, on urban and rural roads, the deviation in speed profiles is generally relatively large because

of the much more frequent braking and accelerating. At the same time, on these roads the deviation

in the speed distribution can be smaller than on motorways, because of the smaller speed

differences between the various road users.


Figure 2-2: Example of a speed profile of a passenger car with and without a speed limiter on a

motorway without congestion

2.6.4 Data on average speeds and speed distribution

For both the ex-post and the ex-ante analysis, data on the current speed distributions are needed,

for all countries and for different vehicle types and road types. However, such a complete data set is

not available for all countries.

For the ex-post analysis ideally the measured average speeds and speed distribution before the

implementation of the Speed Limitation Directive is compared with the situation after. However, in

reality we face three problems:

- Data on speed and speed distribution is not available for all countries.

- If data is available, this data does not distinguish between M2 and M3 or N2 and N3

vehicles. Most of the time only the speeds of cars are measured. If data on HGVs is

present it is for the group as a whole (>3.5 tonnes).

- If data is available, this data does not exist in long time series. Data before 2005 is already

hard to find and no data was found going back to before 1995.

For the ex-ante analysis, data of today is needed, for the different groups of countries and for all

road types. Although this data does not exist for all countries, there is at least data available for

different speed limits and for different types of vehicles. Furthermore, for the ex-ante evaluations,

the effect of the different scenarios on the speed distribution is required. These speed distributions

are not available from literature. The speed distributions are constructed based on the speed

distribution in the current situation and making estimates on the changes in driving speeds, see also

Annex 12.

Information on speed and speed distribution was found for Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland,

France, Ireland, Latvia, Slovakia and the UK (see Table 2-10). The European Road Safety

Observatory (ERSO) website on the availability of Safety Performance Indicators (SPI) data in the

EU49 suggests that more data would be available. Closer inspection of both the SPI report and the

references made there, showed that sometimes data was no longer (publicly) available or that data

49 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/wcm/road_safety/erso/data/Content/availability_of_spi_data_in_eu.htm

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Veh

icle

velo

cit

y [

m/s

]

Time [s]

without speed limiter with speed limiter


reported could not be used for this analysis (e.g. because only information was given on the number

of speeders instead of on the whole speed distribution).

Table 2-10 summarizes the information available on speeds. Best information is available for

France, Ireland and the UK as these countries provide the most detailed information. Finland and

the UK are of particular interest as they are the only countries differentiating according to M/N

type. Note that in general time series start at the earliest around the year 1997.

Table 2-10: Overview of information on actual vehicle speeds and speed distributions in EU Member

States

Country Average

speed Speed distribution

Differentiation according to

road types

Differentiation according to

vehicle types

Years Remarks and source

Austria Yes Yes 30 km/h and 50

km/h roads Only car

2008-2010 versus

2009-2011

More data available, but needs to be purchased.

Österreichischer Verkehrssicherheitfonds

(2011)

Belgium Yes Yes (only for 120 km/h roads)

30 km/h, 50 km/h, 70 km/h,

90 km/h, 120 km/h roads

Only for 120 km/h: car versus

HGV

120 km/h: 2011

Other roads: 2007-

2010

More detailed data was

requested, but is not available

BIVV (2010) and BIVV (2012)

Denmark yes no City streets, interurban, 110 km/h, 130 km/h

Only car 2002-2012 Hastighedsbarometer

Finland yes Standard deviation 100 km/h, 120

km/h

N2 and N3 versus M2 and M3 versus

M1 and N1

1999-2012

Speed limit in Finland is lower in the winter on

motorways

Questionnaires

France yes

For 2000 and 2011 – cars for 130 km/h

roads, 110 km/h roads, 90 km/h

roads, 50 km/h roads

For trucks for 2011

Urban roads, 90 km/h, 110 km/h,

motorways

Car versus truck

(more than 3 ax) 2000-2011

No numbers, figures

Source: Observatoire vitesse 2005,2009, 2011

and Observatoire sur le comportement des Poids

Lourds en IdF (2010)

Ireland yes

Yes, for the different road types and

different vehicle types

Urban and rural roads, including

motorways

Car, articulated vehicles, rigid

vehicles, single deck buses

Average free speed for 1999-2011,

distribution for 2007,2008,2011

Speed Survey studies (2006,2007,2008,2011)

Latvia yes no Motorways, per motorway

no 2005-2012 http://www.lvceli.lv/traffic/Yearly.php

Slovakia yes no 50 km/h and 90 km/h

“Motor vehicles” 2010-2012 Questionnaire

UK yes yes

30 mph, 40 mph,

motorways, dual carriageways,

single carriageways

Yes, also LGV, HGV

differentiated according to

number of axles and

rigid/articulated

1997-2011

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/d

epartment-for-transport/series/speeds-

statistics


ETSC Pin Flash 16 50gives information on the average speed and the percentage of speeders on

different types of road for cars and vans. Within the ETSC Pin Flash 24 (2013) 51 data is given on

the mean speed of HGVs over 3.5 tonnes in free flowing traffic for rural and urban roads. The

percentage of HGVs speeding is also given. The following table summarizes the information

available in terms of countries, time period and speed regimes covered.

Table 2-11: Summary information available in ETSC Pin Flash 24 (2013)

Country

Rural roads

Period (speed regime)

Urban roads

Period (speed regime)

Austria 2007-2011 (70 km/h) 2007-2011(30,50 and 70 km/h)

Cyprus 2011 (70 and 90 km/h) -

Finland 2005-2011 (70 km/h) -

France 2001-2011 (90 km/h) 2001-2011 (50 km/h)

Ireland 2009-2011 (80 and 90 km/h) 2009-2011 (50 km/h)

Portugal 2001-2004 (90 km/h) -

Sweden 2001-2004 (90 km/h) 2001-2003 (50 km/h)

UK 2001-2011 (64 and 81 km/h) 2001-2011 (48 and 64 km/h)

Source: ETSC Pin Flash 24 (2013)

2.6.5 Speed distributions with and without a speed limiter

The application of a speed limiter has an effect on the speed distribution, because the drivers

exceeding the speed limit will be forced to decrease their speed. To apply this principle in the ex-

post and ex-ante analysis we start from the situations without the speed limiter.

Given the data limitations explained above we start from a theoretical speed distribution. The speed

distribution is assumed to be normally distributed around the average speed with the speed

deviation. The average speed that is driven on the road is different for different road types and for

different posted speed limits. The average speeds and speed deviations of the speed distributions

used for the situations without a speed limiter are shown in Table 2-12. Using the information

sources from Table 2-10, the average speeds and standard deviation were calculated for different

vehicles and different speed limits (Annex 16). This information then forms the base for the figures

shown in the table below.

50 Road Safety Performance Index (PIN) Flash 16 – Tackling the three main killers on the roads. A priority for the

forthcoming EU Road Safety Action Programme. 51 Road Safety Performance Index-(PIN) Flash 24- Towards Safer Transport of Goods and Passengers in Europe


Table 2-12: Average speeds and speed deviations without a speed limiter

Average speed (in km/h)

Motorway Rural roads

Posted speed limit (in km/h) Car LGV HGV Bus Car LGV HGV Bus

70 60 60 60 60

80 90 90 85 90 70 70 70 70

90 95 95 90 95 80 80 80 80

100 100 100 95 100 90 90 90 90

110 105 105 100 105

120 110 110

130 115 115

140 120 120

Speed deviation (in km/h) 16 16 6 6 14 14 10 10

It is assumed that without a speed limiter the speed distribution follows a normal distribution

around the mean. If a speed limiter is introduced, it is assumed that drivers that are speeding reduce

their speeds to the level of the speed limiter, so that speeds above the speed limit become very rare.

To illustrate the approach, an example is given. A fictional speed distribution for HGVs with a

speed limit of 90 km/h is shown in Figure 2-3. The green line shows the distribution if there is no

speed limiter; the red line shows the distribution if the speed limiter is set at the level of the posted

speed limit of 90 km/h.

Figure 2-3: Speed distribution with and without a speed limiter

The assumptions on the speed distributions differ per road type, vehicle type, scenario and posted

speed limit and are discussed in section 4.2 for the ex-post analysis and in section 5.3 and 6.4 for

the ex-ante analyses.

2.6.6 Speed profiles with and without speed limiters

TNO has a broad database of speed profiles that were used in many studies on the impact of speed

on emissions. For this study this database has been used. A selection of appropriate speed profiles

was made (per combination of speed limit, road type and vehicle type). Where necessary these

profiles were tuned to match them with the average speed of the speed distribution used for the

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110

no speed limiter with speed limiter speed limit


same combination of scenario, vehicle type and traffic situation. More information on this can be

found in section 2.8.2 and in Annex 13.

2.6.7 Member States with high and low maximum speeds

The effects of the speed limiter on the speed distribution and speed profiles are very different

amongst the Member States. This is because the speed reduction depends on the actual speeds

driven on the roads. The posted speed limits in the Member States are different for each vehicle

class, and therefore the extent to which the speed is limited by the speed limiter. For example, when

the posted speed limit on a road is 80 km/h, then a speed limiter of 110 km/h will probably have a

negligible effect. The posted speed limits for all Member States are included in Annex 3.

For both the ex-post and ex-ante evaluations the results of the calculation of impacts on safety and

emission are presented at EU level, but also separately for Member States with high posted speed

limits and Member States with low posted speed limits. This will allow showing the difference in

effects depending on posted speed limits.

The speed limit considered for classification of Member States between the categories of low

posted speed limits and high posted speed limits is presented in Table 2-13. Annex 14 shows per

Member State and vehicle class to which category the Member State was classified. For some

Member States, the posted speed limit for certain vehicle classes are so low that the impacts on

driving speeds and hence on safety and emissions can be expected to be negligible in all speed

limiter scenarios.

Table 2-13: Speed limits in Member States with low posted speed limits and high posted speed limits

Posted speed limits

Road type Vehicle Low High

Motorway N1/M1 115 130

N2/N3 80 90

M2/M3 90 100

Rural roads N1/M1 90 100

N2/N3 80 90

M2/M3 80 90

The actual calculations for retrieving the safety impacts at EU level were based on the posted speed

limits per Member State, per road type and per vehicle category, as is explained in the

corresponding methodology sections. However, for illustrative reasons the safety impacts are also

presented for these two types of average Member States.

For the emission impacts, this definition of Member States with high and low posted speed limits

was not just used for illustrative reasons. To keep the number of speed profiles that was to be

developed and the number of VERSIT+ model runs (see section 2.8.3) within a reasonable

number, the emission impacts per scenario and vehicle class were estimated for a Member State

with a high and a low posted speed limit, as defined in Table 2-13. Each Member State was then

mapped to either low or high (per vehicle class and road type – see Annex 14) and the emission

impacts of that category were applied.


2.7 Safety impacts

2.7.1 Introduction

There is a strong relationship between speed and road safety. In general the relation is simple: speed

is involved in all accidents; no speed, no accidents. Speed not only affects the severity of a crash,

but is also related to the risk of being involved in a crash (e.g. Elvik et al., 2004). Speed limiters

have an impact on road safety by reducing the number of accidents and the severity of accidents.

The methodology applied for estimation of the impacts of speed limiters on road safety will be

explained in this section.

First the data on accident rates are presented in section 2.7.2. Then the methodology for the time

series analysis of historical accidents rates as applied for the ex-post analysis is explained in section

2.7.3. In section 2.7.4, the methodology for estimating safety impacts with speed-accident

relationships is explained. This approach is applied for both the ex-ante and ex-post analyses.

Finally, the approach for estimating the safety impacts of the ISA systems is discussed in section

2.7.5.

It should be noticed that changes in traffic speeds may in the long run affect transport demand and

traffic volumes. This will also have an impact on accident rates. However, this type of second order

effects is beyond the scope of this study and therefore not included in the analysis.

2.7.2 Data on current accident rates

Over time, the number of accidents with HGVs and buses has decreased in the EU. Likewise, the

number of fatalities in accidents with HCVs has decreased. Figure 2-4 shows the number of

fatalities in accidents involving HGVs and buses or coaches, in the EU-1952 between 2000 and

2009. No data is available at this level (EU19) to make a further distinction between M3/M2 and

N3/N2. Over the nine years presented in the figure, there was a decrease for HGVs of 47%; for

buses and coaches a decrease of 45% within the EU19. The relative decrease for the two types of

vehicles has been similar, although the absolute numbers are much higher for HGVs.

Over time, also the total number of accident fatalities, whether or not involving HCVs, decreased.

For fatalities with an HCV involved, this decrease has been stronger than for the total number of

road fatalities. Therefore the share of fatalities in accidents with HGVs or buses/coaches involved,

decreased from about 16% in 2000 to 14% in 200953.

52 Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands,

Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Finland, Sweden and United Kingdom

53 ERSO Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2011 – Heavy Goods Vehicles and Buses


Figure 2-4: Fatalities in accidents involving HGVs or buses

Source: ERSO Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2011 – Heavy Goods Vehicles and Buses

According to the CARE dataset, for the EU2454 in 2009, 14% of all accidents involving HCVs

happened on motorways. In Luxemburg, 100% of the accidents involving HCVs happened on

motorways while this was 0% for countries like Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Malta and Finland. Given

the large differences between countries, the analysis of impacts on road safety within this study was

also done on a national level.

Table 2-14 and Table 2-15 show the number of fatal road accidents per year and country over the

period 1991-2011 for HGVs and buses respectively. The CARE database does not distinguish

between the N2 and N3 vehicles, but it does report LGVs defined as below 3.5 tonnes, see Table

2-16. Note however, that these data should be treated with more care as not all countries use the

same categorisation. Especially the data for Italy is known to be unreliable and has therefore been

excluded for the analysis55. No distinction is made either between M2 and M3 vehicles. For M1

vehicles (i.e. commercially used passenger vans comprising no more than eight seats in addition to

the driver's seat) there are no data available.

54 EU-19 + Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Malta and Slovakia 55 Source: personal communication with DG MOVE. Moreover, the analysis of Italian data clearly showed unexplainable

differences over time. For example between 2000 and 2001 the number of HGV fatal road accidents increased from 324

to 1014.


Table 2-14: HGV fatal road accidents per year and country

Source: CARE database, received from DG MOVE April 2013.

Table 2-15: Bus fatal road accidents per year and country


1991 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

BE 179 145 128 135 118 98 105 97 84 99 81 71 71 77

CZ 170 174 151 168 186 172 172 170 173 125 142 147 134

DK 94 83 77 59 53 51 56 65 38 57 50 28 31

DE 535 509 469 465 412 396 400 389 369 336 320 338

IE 52 60 48 45 29 46 42 15 10 11 16 5 5

EL 241 277 94 116 119 115 90 77 79 66 70 59 61 47

ES 858 667 672 477 513 521 486 443 387 360 282 238 209 186

FR 1176 993 748 774 716 531 554 564 539 511 482 397 417 439

IT 224 248 324 1014 1017 902 877 841 817 718 710 600 641

LU 12 5 2 5 5 5 4 0 6 2 1 0 1

NL 154 161 127 121 98 107 36 39 39 46 28 69 58 56

AT 152 123 93 86 86 103 106 91 85 61 82 60 71 54

PL 703 1202 1246 1242 1257 1194 1108 1026 960 809 763 822

PT 299 229 189 141 152 147 124 104 90 91 77 78 71

RO 167 157 163 185 170 235 195 221 218 188 149 137

SI 8 14 12 8 16 8 4 13 6 4 4

FI 111 75 65 102 86 90 81 79 76 79 95 66 74 78

SE 88 85 90 89 104 75 51 53 71 75 50 40

UK 605 457 414 438 390 405 351 356 322 332 282 213 205

1991 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

BE 36 18 25 23 27 27 26 18 28 24 20 18 16 20

CZ 56 26 35 34 36 29 23 25 25 24 27 19 22

DK 9 21 11 12 18 15 14 10 12 17 9 8 11

DE 111 110 85 78 78 84 70 70 62 51 60 55

IE 8 9 9 7 6 2 11 3 1 5 2 2

EL 62 56 41 36 29 32 24 34 21 21 22 16 17 23

ES 126 91 86 61 65 81 55 61 46 46 42 39 35 37

FR 109 108 99 92 81 71 63 72 66 67 56 56 58 45

IT 108 95 109 97 82 100 110 95 82 70 85 68 72 0

LU 2 4 3 5 4 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 0

NL 24 17 22 25 20 20 5 10 8 8 4 14 10 10

AT 26 21 22 16 9 19 16 9 12 11 7 10 8 1

PL 124 205 182 196 199 210 155 131 125 106 101 83

PT 67 58 43 34 37 19 29 19 8 13 18 12 18

RO 56 46 83 67 76 93 85 98 77 83 70 56

SI 8 5 4 11 8 4 2 2 3 5 3

FI 35 22 16 20 16 12 7 12 16 13 13 8 9 10

SE 28 23 16 26 23 22 12 11 22 10 11 11

UK 212 157 149 183 135 135 130 120 142 125 104 91 70


Table 2-16: LGV (<3.5 tonnes) fatal road accidents per year and country


Similar data is also available

- for all accidents, whether or not they have led to fatalities or serious injuries, and for

accidents with serious injuries; and

- per road type where a distinction is made between urban roads, rural roads and motorways.

2.7.3 Methodology for statistical analysis of safety impacts (used for ex-post)

In this section, the statistical methodology (time series analysis) which is used as a first approach to

analyse the possible safety effects in the ex-post evaluation is described.

Although such quantification is useful, it has serious limitations. This is due to the following:

- A pure effect analysis implies that a clear before – during – after measurement of road

safety is made where no other, secondary, effects influence the measurements. This is of

course not the case in practice: other legislations such as driver time registration and

technical advances also influence road safety.

- The year of introduction of speed limitation devices differs significantly from country to

country (see section 1.1).

- Data availability differs significantly between Member States. This hampers the exactness

of a time series analysis.

This approach was nevertheless followed as it is still the best available approach based on actual

accident statistics. It was complemented by a second approach (see section 2.8.4).

With the current time series analysis, we try to answer the following question: can we find evidence

for the singular effect of the introduction of speed limitation devices on HGVs and buses as far as

road safety is concerned.

1991 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

BE 97 75 119 107 102 72 76 89 90 87 80 102 73 76

CZ 90 95 91 92 65 89 83 75 103 102 76 49 60

DK 121 97 67 61 57 73 42 48 39 57 56 46 28 0

DE 756 672 587 607 577 519 511 449 409 389 365 361

IE 32 33 27 34 27 40 24 14 2 10 5 7 5 0

EL 280 299 140 130 125 118 124 121 114 106 114 93 73 59

ES 842 584 602 585 589 560 540 493 494 452 369 303 270 248

FR 561 365 270 304 297 255 195 192 350 393 356 408 386 375

HR 31 23

IT 693 524 334

LV 18 15 11 13 7

HU 106 112 125 123 130 110 91 73

NL 112 135 124 126 112 154 25 27 28 19 24 79 59 63

AT 56 57 56 56 62 63 51 49 36 29 44 39 28 28

PT 418 338 300 323 302 280 210 227 196 143 161 158 162

RO 0 0 160 188 177 173 199 346 379 401 442 379 365 331

SI 0 0 39 26 36 27 36 16 38 38 39 23 19

SK 22 15 10 4 2 4

FI 63 47 41 27 31 39 28 30 14 32 29 18 25 21

SE 53 32 38 32 26 20 19 24 30 18 22 20

UK 416 299 253 280 266 291 256 234 249 269 187 160 159


To this purpose, “road safety” is defined by the following two variables:

- The number of fatal accidents where HGVs or buses (“Coaches & Buses”) are involved.

- The relative risk (fatal accidents where HGVs or buses are involved, divided by billion

vehicle-kilometre).

The time series analysis uses the following methodological steps.

- Step 1: data clean-up: only complete datasets from the year 2000 onwards are used.

- Step 2: elimination of short-term safety variations (i.e. <2 years) through the use of un-

centred moving means over 5-year periods (see below for more explanation on this

approach). These are then centred on a two-year basis (averaging two successive un-

centred moving means). This is done to avoid influences from one-off measures or short

term variations in road safety as a result of local or external measures.

- Step 3: creation of a trend-line with associated R² values (coefficient of determination, i.e.

indicator assessing the correlation between two variables).

The data which was used for this analysis are:

- An accident database made available by DG MOVE (CARE database)

- The calculated vehicle-km for HCVs per Member State as calculated in section 2.4.3

DG MOVE provided an extract from the CARE database with accident information for 27

countries for the time period 1995 up to 2011. In particular, accident information with HGVs and

buses was provided with distinctions between accident location (inside and outside built-up area

and motorways) and some accident characteristics. A disadvantage of the CARE database is that it

does not distinguish between the different categories as set out by the Speed Limitation Directive

(M3, M2, N3, N2 below 7.5 tonnes and N2 above 7.5 tonnes).

The CARE database does give information on the type of road where the accident happens.

However, as we could not attribute the vehicle-kilometres driven on national territory to different

road types, the analysis uses instead the total number of fatal accidents, irrespective of road type. In

order to estimate an accident risk, vehicle-kilometres driven on national territory were used (see

section 2.3).

This raw database was adapted for the time series analysis through the elimination of Member

States where no consistent data was available for the time period from the year 2000 onwards. In

effect, this meant the following:

- 19 countries withheld for analysis: Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Ireland,

Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal,

Romania, Slovenia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

- 8 countries were eliminated from analysis: Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Malta, Slovakia,

Switzerland, Iceland and Norway.

This was done because of the necessity to create enough data points for the time series analysis.

Through the use of un-centred moving means (5 year average), 5 data points are eliminated from

the set. This means that in effect, a dataset that starts in the year 2000 and is complete up to, and

including 2011, is delivering 7 data points for the creation of a trend-line. This is considered to be a

minimum for reliable results.


2.7.4 Methodology for estimating safety impacts based on changes in traffic

speeds (used for ex-ante and ex-post)

The second approach applied for assessing the safety impacts is applied for both the ex-post and

ex-ante evaluations. It starts from a model that simulates the changes in the speed distribution

(average speed and speed dispersion). The model is based on the relations between speed and safety

that were found in the literature. To find a good approach, an extensive literature search was

performed. The elaborated review of literature can be found in Annex 12. Here, a short overview

will be presented. This section only covers the effect of speed limiters. The methodology of the

safety impacts of ISA is explained in section 2.7.5.

Literature

There is evidence that a reduction in absolute speed has a positive effect on road safety. A higher

absolute speed leads to less response time, larger breaking distances, less vehicle control,

unpredictable behaviour of other fast driving vehicles, narrowed drivers vision and, last but not

least, the kinetic energy released in an accident is higher. With lower speeds, the number of injury

accidents will decrease and the effect is even larger for more severe accidents. The formulas that are

used to define in the present study this relationship between absolute speed and the accident rates,

injury rates and fatality rates, have been developed by Nilsson (1982)56 and updated by Elvik

(2009)57. They are also commonly known as the power functions and are widely used to quantify

this relationship.

There are also clear indications that a decrease in speed dispersion has a positive effect on road

safety. Speed dispersion leads to less predictability, more encounters and more overtaking

manoeuvres. However, quantification of these effects is less certain because this is much harder to

research. At the individual vehicle level there is evidence that a vehicle which drives faster than

average have a higher accident risk. This is quantified by, for example Kloeden (2001)58. Whether

this is also true for vehicles that drive slower than average is not clear. Taylor (2000)59 developed a

formula for speed dispersion at road section level, and included both speed deviation of the traffic

flow and the average speed.

Table 2-17 summarises the three studies that were used in this evaluation study with respect to the

relationship that they describe and the type of effect that is calculated.

Table 2-17: Summary of the studies that were chosen from the literature

Study Formula includes Calculates estimate of effect

56 Nilsson, G., 1982. The effects of speed limits on traffic crashes in Sweden, In: Proceedings of the international

symposium on the effects of speed limits on traffic crashes and fuel consumption, Dublin. Organisation for Economy,

Co-operation, and Development (OECD), Paris. 57 Elvik, R., 2009. The Power Model of the relationship between speed and road safety. Update and new estimates.

Report 1034. Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo. 58 Kloeden, C.N., Ponte, G., McLean, A.J., 2001. Travelling speed and the rate of crash involvement on rural roads.

Report No. CR 204. Australian Transport Safety Bureau ATSB, Civic Square, ACT. 59 Taylor, M.C., Lynam, D.A., Baruya, A., 2000. The effects of drivers’ speed on the frequency of road accidents. TRL

Report, No. 421. Transport Research Laboratory TRL, Crowthorne, Berkshire.


Absolute speed Speed dispersion

on:

Nilsson/Elvik Yes No i..a.. all injury accidents, serious injuries, fatalities

Kloeden et al. No Yes

Number of vehicles involved in

crashes (accidents leading to at least the hospital)

Taylor et al. Yes Yes All injury crashes

Methodology applied in the ex-post and ex-ante evaluations

For the ex-post and ex-ante evaluation the power functions developed by Nilsson and Elvik and

the information on the impact of average speed (see section 2.6) are used to calculate the effects on

the number of fatal accidents, accidents with serious injuries and all injury accidents. This is done

on a country level (for the 19 countries as mentioned in the previous section), because the

maximum speed and the shares of different vehicle types in vehicle-kilometres and accident rates all

play a role in the calculations.

The accident reductions that were calculated using the power functions are applied to the accident

rates of the vehicle categories involved for each Member State. The studies of Nilsson and Elvik

examined the effects on the number of crashes of the increases and decreases of average speeds on

a road section and the average speeds were based on all traffic. To correct for the fact that in

multilateral accidents the other involved vehicle did not have a speed limiter, the damage potential

perspective was used (it is commonly used in external cost studies such as CE Delft et al (2011)60).

By applying the damage potential perspective, it is taken into account that larger vehicles (i.e.

HCVs) expose greater danger to other road users (see text box).

Damage potential perspective (intrinsic risk)

The heavier and faster a vehicle, the greater the danger to which it will expose other road users, i.e. the bigger its damage potential. The damage potential perspective is the allocation of the external accident costs to the different transport modes and vehicle categories for accidents with multiple parties involved, according to the damage potential (sometimes also referred to as intrinsic risk approach) of a certain vehicle category. This means that all victims in a certain vehicle involved in a multiple party accident are attributed to the other vehicle involved.

In this report the road safety effects will be presented on EU level, for Member States with low

posted speed limits and for those with high posted speed limits (see also 2.6.7).

The methodology for estimating road safety impacts of speed limiters using the changes in speeds

as applied in the current project is described comprehensively in 5 steps in Annex 12.

Limitations of the methodology

The methodology applied has some important limitations that are important to note, before

interpreting the results.

- The simulations model that was used to estimate the effect of speed limiters on the speed

distribution is a very simplified model of reality. The speed distribution was assumed to be

60 CE Delft, Infras, Fraunhofer ISI, 2011, External Costs of Transport in Europe, Update Study for 2008, Delft 2011


normally distributed. In literature this assumption is often used. However, the speed

distribution at road section level will depend on many conditions, such as the weather,

congestion, road characteristics and the specific road users. This will be different for

different roads and for different locations on each road.

- The results are very sensitive to the average speed and speed dispersion in the various

scenarios. As there was not much data on speeds amongst Member States, the assumed

data on the impacts on speed distributions are relatively uncertain (see also section 2.6) and

so also the safety impacts are uncertain. In the result chapter for the ex-post analysis, a

sensitivity analysis is carried out to show the uncertainty of the calculation (see section

4.3.3).

- In the scenario calculations the effect of speed limiters was standardised. In reality,

however the implementation of the Directive by the Member States and enforcement will

determine how well the speed limiter performs.

- In this research the power functions were used to estimate the effect of the speed limiters.

Only the impacts of the absolute speed are included quantitatively, speed dispersion only

qualitatively. In the literature, it is not clear which aspect of speed is more important.

Absolute speed is involved in all accidents, certainly in relation to the severity of the

accident, while speed dispersion is involved in part of accidents.

- The power functions are based on a fairly sound before–after study design and are

considered by Aarts and van Schagen (2006) to describe best the effect of changes in

average speed on different crash severities levels. Still, the exact relationship between speed

and crash frequency depends on the actual road and traffic characteristics, including road

width, junction density, and traffic flow. The evaluation in this report only gives the

direction and order of magnitude for the effects.

- The power functions were estimated based on an evaluation of all vehicles in the traffic

flow, not just a part of the traffic. In this research however, we apply the power functions

only to the part of the traffic flow (mainly HCVs, and LCVs to some extent in the ex-ante

evaluation) that changes their speed because of the speed limiter. The overestimation of

effects for multilateral accidents is corrected by using the damage potential perspective.

- There is limited data available on speeds and speed differentiation, especially for HCVs

without a speed limiter, as they all (should) have speed limiters nowadays

- There is limited data available on accidents on EU level, as many Member States use

different definitions and stratifications. The CARE database tries to deal with this as good

as possible, but the data should not be taken for granted.

The exact relationship between speed and accidents on a particular road is very complex and will

depend on a range of road and traffic characteristics that interact with speed and also on the

characteristics and behaviour of the drivers using the road, such as age, driving experience, drink-

driving and seatbelt wearing. From all the limitations it has to be concluded that the road safety

impacts should be considered as uncertain and a best estimate instead of the exact impacts.

Nevertheless, the approach explained above and applied in this study is the most advanced and

accurate approach available for this type of analysis.

2.7.5 Methodology for estimating safety impacts of ISA

The assessment of the safety impacts of ISA is based on the literature discussed in section 2.5.3.

This ensures that safety impacts from both the changes in the average speed and speed

distributions, as well as in the changes in speed variations over time are fully taken into account.

Consequently, no data on the changes in speed distributions are needed for estimating the safety


impacts from ISA systems. A main difference between ISA and regular speed limiters is that also

accident rates on urban roads are affected.

The table below shows the effectiveness of ISA as used further in the analysis. The percentages

shown are from Carsten et al. (2008) (see section 2.5.3). It does not distinguish between road types

as the same factors are applied for each country in the EU and it is clear that a motorway in the UK

does not have the same characteristics as a motorway in Sweden. However it should be

remembered that the literature discussed before indicates that the effects are expected to be the

largest for road types with a lower speed limit (20-30-40 mph). As none of the scenarios includes an

intervening ISA system, only impacts for Advisory and Voluntary systems are shown.

Table 2-18: Relative reduction in number of accidents for different ISA types assumed in the analysis

Type of ISA system Accident Severity Total

Fatal Serious Slight

Advisory 9% 4% 2% 2%

Voluntary 25% 19% 10% 11%

Source: Carsten et al. (2008)61

It is possible to combine ISA with a speed limiter for HCVs. Literature on how to estimate the

combined effect of measures is scarce. Elvik (2009)62 made an exploratory analysis to conclude that

there is very little empirical evidence to support model building. Nevertheless, two models were

compared.

The common residual model assumes that the (percentage) effect of a road safety measure remains

unchanged when this measure is combined with other road safety measures. In simplistic terms, if

measure 1 decreases accidents with 30% and measure 2 with 20%, taking merely the sum would

lead to a reduction of 50% (30%+20%). The common residual model however would assume a

smaller reduction in accidents of 44% corresponding to the following calculation: (1-(1-0.3)*(1-

0.2)).

The other model, the dominant common residuals model, assumes that the most effective measure

in a set of measures has a dominant effect that weakens the effects of other road safety measures it

is combined with. In our example above, this would mean that the combination of the two

measures would lead to a decrease in accidents of 30%.

Elvik (2009) found that evidence from available studies was consistent with both these models. A

third model, which can be seen as a maximum, assumes that measures are independent and hence

merely sums the effects over the measures.

In the remainder of the analysis it is assumed that the dominant common residual model applies.

This means that on motorways the impacts of the speed limiter applies as they have there the

dominant effect. On the lower speed limit roads (urban and rural roads) it is assumed that the effect

of ISA is dominant.

61 Carsten, Lai, Chorlton,Goodman, Carslaw & Hess (2008), Speed Limit Adherence and its effect on road safety and

climate change, Final Report.

62 Elvik, R. (2009), An exploratory analysis of models for estimating the combined effects of road safety measures,

Accident Analysis and Prevention 41, 876-880


2.8 Impacts on emissions and fuel consumption

2.8.1 Introduction

Speed limitation devices have impacts on the levels of emissions. At the vehicle level, fuel efficiency

and resulting CO2-emissions are strongly affected by speed. Higher speeds result in higher friction

of air and tires and so a higher energy demand. At the same time the energy efficiency of the

drivetrain of the vehicle is also dependent on the speed, generally being suboptimal at low speeds

and very high speeds and having an optimum somewhere in between. The combination of both

effects makes that there is an optimal vehicle speed for fuel consumption and CO2-emissions63. For

cars this optimal is generally reached at a constant speed in the range of 70-90 km/h. For pollutant

emissions, a similar relation between speed and emissions exists. Differences in emissions levels

between optimal and suboptimal speeds are even larger than for CO2-emissions.

Apart from the average vehicle speed, also the speed dynamics have a great impact on emissions.

Generally, the higher the speed dynamics are, the higher the emissions. The more technology is

installed on vehicles, the larger the role of throttle movements on pollutant emissions is. Regarding

fuel consumption and CO2, especially accelerating results in temporarily higher fuel consumption

and associated emission increase.

The estimation of the impacts of speed limiters on energy use and emissions will therefore start

from the assessment of the impacts of speed limiters on speed and speed profiles. Using the vehicle

emission model VERSIT+, speed profiles without and with (simulated) speed limiter are then used

to assess the impact on energy use and emissions. With the relations between speed and speed

profile on the one hand and energy use and emissions on the other, the impacts on macro scale can

then be estimated with policy assessment model TREMOVE. As these relations depend on vehicle

type and road type, these parameters will be taken into account.

In this section the methodology for analysing emission impacts of speed limiters is presented. The

simulation models that will be used, i.e. VERSIT+ and TREMOVE, are concisely described in

Annex 15.

Besides the impacts from changes in emissions and fuel consumption at the vehicle level, second

order emission impacts can be expected from changes in transport volume. Lower vehicle speeds

result in the long term in lower transport volumes. In the long run, these impacts can be rather

significant; for CO2 emissions in some cases even as large as the primary impacts64. However, the

assessment of this type of second-round impacts is beyond the scope of this study.

2.8.2 Selection of speed profiles

Changes in emissions cannot be estimated on the basis of statistical data on total emissions

estimated from measured or manually recorded data on total fuel consumption and total travelled

distance. First of all, the absolute changes in emissions due to speed limitation are likely too low to

be distinguished from other effects such as changes in transport demand, vehicle efficiency

63 As there is 1 to 1 relationship between the impacts on CO2 emissions and fuel consumption, the results for only one of

the two (CO2 emissions) is presented. The relative changes in fuel consumption are the same. 64 Task 3 Paper Exploration of the knock-on consequences of relevant potential policies’, Richard Smokers (TNO), Ian

Skinner (TEPR) and Huib van Essen (CE Delft), EU Transport GHG Routes to 2050 project,

www.eutransportghg2050.eu .


improvements, etc. Furthermore, statistical data on total fuel consumption and total travelled

distance is not detailed enough for such an analysis. Therefore, the analysis of the impacts of speed

limiters on emissions is based on the analysis of their impacts on speed profiles.

The application of a speed limiter lowers the average vehicle speed as well as the vehicle speed

dynamics, particularly on motorways. Both a lower average speed and a less dynamic speed profile

lead to lower emissions on motorways. Speed limiters thus most likely leads to a decrease in

emissions. Additionally, emissions are also influenced by the typical stop-drive and/or brake-

accelerate pattern during congestion. Decreasing the number of accidents, as a result of less

dynamic speed profiles, would reduce congestion and hence this pattern of driving (see also analysis

of impacts on safety). This could in turn lead to an additional positive effect on emissions, since

emissions increase at very low speeds, e.g. during congestion. Just like the demand effects, this latter

type of secondary effects is not quantified in the present study.

For the analysis of impacts on emissions, speed profiles are selected that represent the typical

driving behaviour for a specific vehicle type (e.g. LGV, HGV or bus) on a specific road type (e.g.

motorway or rural road) without a speed limiter. Since it is assumed that the driving behaviour of

HGVs and buses are comparable both on rural roads and motorways, only one speed profile is

used for both HGVs and buses for each road type. For LCVs on the other side, different profiles

are used than for HCVs. The speed profiles on motorways and rural roads are shown in Figure 2-5

and Figure 2-6, respectively.

Figure 2-5: Motorway speed profiles for HGVs and buses (left) and LGVs (right), without speed limiters

and average speeds of respectively 85 km/h and 115km/h

Figure 2-6: Rural road speed profiles for HGVs and buses (left) and LCVs (right), without speed limiters

and average speeds of respectively 80 km/h and 90 km/h


To analyse the effect of the speed limiter, these speed profiles are than compared to the desired

average speed. To do this, the same speed profile is adapted by multiplying the velocities of the

speed profile with a factor determined by dividing the desired average velocity with the initial

average velocity. In the analysis hereafter, the speed is limited to the analysed speed limiter speed.

The resulting speed profiles are shown in Annex 13.

The posted speed limits (and therefore the average velocities) vary per country. In order to be able

to determine the effects of speed limiters in different countries with different average velocities

(before the introduction of speed limiters), a high and low variant is used for each scenario. Each

country is ranked into high or low depending on the posted speed limit (see also section 2.6.7). The

variant chosen per country is shown in Annex 14 for each combination of road type and vehicle

type.

2.8.3 Methodology for estimation of relative emission impacts

The CO2, NOx and PM emissions of the different vehicle types with these speed profiles are

determined using VERSIT+ 65 (see Annex 12). This TNO emission model determines emissions of

different vehicle types as a function of the velocity and acceleration of the vehicle, using the

frequency of the speed profile, e.g. a second-by-second recorded speed profile results in a

calculation of emissions on every second. The vehicles chosen for the simulation represent the

average vehicle in that category, with an average load. The emissions count up to total emissions,

which are calculated and divided by the distance travelled to get the average emission factors in

g/km.

The relative changes in emission factors are calculated: the average emission factor of a current real-

world driving scenario are set at 100%, while the emission factor for each of the corresponding new

or changed speed limiter scenarios are expressed as a percentage relative to the baseline scenario.

The relative effect of the introduction of speed limiters or of the change in the speed limiter speed

on the PM emissions is assumed to be equal to the relative effect on CO2 emissions.

To calculate the total impact on emissions, the standard baseline scenario of TREMOVE model is

used and will be compared to scenarios with speed limiters. This scenario represents the baseline

vehicle fleet and transport demand in Europe and includes the baseline emission factors from

COPERT. The scaling factors calculated by VERSIT+ are then applied to the baseline emission

65 [TNO 2007] A new modelling approach for road traffic emissions: VERSIT+. Smit, R., Smokers R., Rabe E.

Transporation Research Part D, 12 (2007), pp. 414–422.


factors in TREMOVE. This is done in order to yield the emissions in the speed limiter scenarios. It

gives an estimation of the total emissions reduction or increase in CO2, PM2.5 and NOx on a

European scale between the baseline scenario and the compared scenarios.

For the ex-post analysis the use of the TREMOVE model is limited to assessing the impacts of

reduction in emissions on motorways, as there are no significant impacts on emissions on other

roads. For the ex-ante analyses, it is limited to motorways and rural roads as there are no significant

impacts on emissions on urban roads.

2.8.4 Methodology for estimating emissions impacts of ISA

The impacts of ISA systems on emissions are based on the speed impacts plus an additional impact

of ISA. The latter has been based on literature (see section 2.5.3). Overall, Carslaw et al. (2010) and

Lai et al. (2012) found that only on motorways the impact of ISA on CO2 emissions was relevant

with reductions of about 6% (see 2.5.3). On other roads only a small and variable change is found,

which is not significant enough to use in the present study.

2.9 Market impacts

2.9.1 Introduction

The market impacts that can be attributed to the Speed Limitation Directive and to the possible

amendments can refer to different areas:

Composition of vehicle fleet

Cost of transport

Vehicle design

Compliance costs, administrative costs, enforcement and fraud

Level playing field and transport demand.

The impact in terms of vehicle fleet particularly makes reference to the possible shifts between

vehicle categories: whether and to what extent there has been a shift towards more frequent use of

smaller LCVs which are subject to fewer limitations than HCVs.

Impacts on the cost of transport are considered assuming that lower speed limits impose longer

travel times, which turn into higher costs, although mitigated by cost savings due to lower fuel

consumption and also lower maintenance costs.

The impact of vehicle design is related to the possibility that the industry has revised vehicle design

and/or reduced engine power as result of the Speed Limitation Directive.

The impacts on compliance costs include the equipment and the cost of retrofitting, while those on

enforcement and fraud consider how the Speed Limitation Directive is enforced and in how many

cases frauds and illegal behaviours lead to distorted competition among operators. In principle the

vehicle compliance is checked together with the periodic controls performed for the safety of

vehicles, but this is carried out in different manners by the Member States (see also results of the

survey in chapter 3).

The last impact taken into consideration is related to the possible distortion of competition among

road transport operators and among transport modes as well as to possible effect on transport

demand development.


2.9.2 Methodology

It is important to underline three important conditions under which the road transport market has

evolved over the last years:

The implementation of EC legislation affecting the HCV market: EURO emissions

standard, tachograph, work/rest time, road charging, etc.

The economic crisis and the consequent adaptation measures taken by transport operators

to reduce their costs and to accommodate dropped demand volumes.

The road freight transport market tendency towards higher fragmentation of flows (less

stocks, just in time, dedicated shipments, etc.), inducing a more differentiated vehicle

choice.

It is also relevant to mention that the literature related to the assessment of market impacts is quite

poor in comparison with the previously mentioned studies focused on safety and emission impacts.

Together with the market impacts quoted in the literature mentioned in section 2.2, the analysis

considered the following additional references.

The TNO-CE Delft study for T&E (2010)66 on potential CO2 reduction from optimal engine sizing

for LCVs, explains that the performance of vans has increased over the last decades. Analysing the

five best sold LCV models of 2007, power-to-weight ratios have increased over 9% between 1997

and 2009. Because of the enhanced performance (stronger engines) the achieved levels of fuel

consumption and CO2 emission reductions are smaller than the engines efficiency improvements. A

possible way to realise this potential is by modifying engine characteristics. In particular combining

the current specific power outputs (averaged approximately 33 kW/dm3) and average 1997 power-

to-weight ratios of the five analysed LCVs, today’s engine displacements could be decreased by

13%. As a result of this smaller power and displacement, fuel consumption and CO2 emissions

could be reduced by approximately 6%.

Moreover, increasing the specific power output to levels that are being achieved already, CO2

emissions could be reduced even more. For instance, with a specific power output of 41.3 kW/dm3,

approximately 16% less CO2 emissions could be obtained. Concomitant with vehicle optimal

engine sizing, it is expected that the total cost of ownership could decrease by up to 12%. This is

mainly due to decreased fuel consumption and the possibility of reduced purchase costs

The main objective of the NEA-TML study (2010)67 on LGVs was to provide the Commission

services with economic insight into the importance of LGVs in long distance commercial road

freight transport. An evaluation was made of the extent of competition between the LGVs and the

HGVs. The cost calculation exercises showed that there is no substantial cost price based

competition between LGVs and the heavier and larger freight vehicles. The freight cost price per

tonne or per cubic metre of the latter is at least 25% lower than that of an LGV. The analysis of the

bilateral freight flows (in tonnes) between the Member States has shown that on average the

maximum share of LGVs in international goods transport is less than 5% of the total goods flow.

66 Sharpe R.B.A., Verbeek M.M.J.F., Smokers R.T.M., 2010, Potential CO2 reduction from optimal engine sizing for

light commercial vehicles, TNO and CE Delft for Transport & Environment. 67 NEA, Transport & Mobility Leuven, 2010, Light Goods Vehicles in the Road Transport Market of the European

Union.


The report ‘Speed limiters for vans in Europe, Environmental and safety impacts” (2010)68

performs a social cost-benefit analysis associated with mandatory application of speed limiters to

new vans. Two variants have been calculated, one without optimal power rating and one with

optimal power rating. The cost-benefit analysis shows that the benefits balance the costs on average

over both variants calculated. Optimal power rating has, however, a significant impact on the

outcome of the cost-benefit analysis. Additional travel time costs, lower vehicle purchase costs due

to optimal power rating and reduced fuel costs are amongst the most important costs items.

From the BESTUFS reports surveys (2006)69 conducted on urban freight transport typology and

frequency, it emerges that with reference to urban distribution, a mix of vehicles is currently used

where passenger cars and small vans are in many cases adopted for own account shipments, such as

for example those for procurement of goods by small retail shops, bars and restaurants.

The Background Paper of the EU Public-Private Smart Move High Level Group, IRU (2013)

suggests to increase the maximum authorised weight for two-axle coaches in international EU

traffic to at least 19.5 tonnes and recommend 100 km/h maximum speed for coaches on European

motorways and first class roads as well as improved training for drivers.

The IRU Bus and coach road safety handbook (2013) suggests again ensuring drivers are trained to

observe and adhere to speed limits. The IRU is also more in favour of Distronic or Adaptative

Cruise Control System as it automatically regulates vehicle speed depending on the traffic flow.

None of the governmental contacts neither stakeholders suggested specific studies on the impact of

speed limiters on the market.

68 Den Boer E., Brouwer F., Smokers R., Verbeek M., 2010, Speed limiters for vans in Europe, Environmental and safety

impacts. 69 TU Delft, 2006, Data verzameling Stedelijke Distributie


2.10 Coverage of evaluation questions

Table 2-19 lists the evaluation questions that are covered in this study (in accordance with the

technical specifications of the call for Tender) as well as where each question is covered.

Table 2-19: Evaluation questions

Evaluation Question Where is this

covered?

Relevance To what extent has the Speed Limitation Directive contributed to the improvement of road safety and environmental protection in the context of other factors/initiatives having effects on road safety, fuel

consumption and CO2 emissions?

Chapter 4

Effectiveness

What are the main results and impacts related to road safety, fuel consumption and CO2 emissions and

level playing field of the measures set out in the Directive taking into account all categories of heavy commercial vehicles, with special focus on the use of heavy commercial vehicles of category M2 and N2

with maximum mass exceeding 3.5 tonnes but not exceeding 7.5 tonnes?

Chapter 4

Are there any other significant results and impacts of the measures set out in the Directive than those mentioned above?

Chapter 4

Which factors have hindered the improvement of road safety, environmental protection and level playing field?

Chapter 4

To what extent could further decreasing the speed limits as laid down in the Directive and the use of various types of ISA systems improve the impacts achieved by the implementation of the Directive?

Chapter 5

Would the application of speed limitation devices with specific speed limits to light commercial vehicles be necessary in view of road safety, fuel consumption and CO2 emissions and the application of ISA

systems?

Chapter 6

Sustainability What are the main problems with implementation of the Directive in Member States? Is there any

evidence on existence of fraud? If relevant, what is the extent and dynamics of fraudulent practices? Chapter 3

Given the technological developments, would exploitation of speed limitation devices be still appropriate

in 5 years? Chapter 7

Efficiency

Is there a scope for administrative burden and compliance/enforcement cost reduction while implementing the Directive?

Sections on market

impacts

Is there a scope for limiting burdens for SMEs and micro-enterprises without significantly hindering the achievement of safety and emission reduction objectives of the Directive? Could SMEs and micro-enterprises be excluded from the scope of the Directive?

Sections on market impacts

Would it be possible to achieve the same level of road safety and environmental protection more efficiently by other means (e.g. infrastructure improvements, advanced solutions in vehicle construction,

better enforcement of traffic rules)?

Chapter 7

Could ISA systems be efficient enough to replace or complement existing speed limitation devices? Would

these technologies be mature enough for widespread implementation?

Chapter 2 and

5

Utility In the light of the targets set by the White Paper on Transport, can the impacts achieved by the

implementation of the Directive be considered as sufficient in medium and long term? Chapter 7

EU added

value

Why should the introduction of speed limitation devices to commercial vehicles be regulated at EU level,

and not left up to each Member State to decide? Chapter 7


3 Member States Survey and stakeholder

workshop

3.1 Introduction

The purpose of the survey was to collect the required data from Member States' competent

authorities and other relevant stakeholders in relation to:

1. the impacts of the Speed Limitation Directive (first objective of the study), and

2. their opinions on its possible amendment (second objective).

The results of the survey feed the analytical work of the ex-post and ex-ante evaluations. As a final

step of the consultation process, a stakeholders’ conference was held on 10 June 2013 in Brussels.

The goal of the conference was to provide the stakeholders and Member States representatives with

the opportunity to give feedback on the project intermediate results and proposed methodology

and to share their views and knowledge on the subject.

In this chapter, first the questionnaire responses are presented (section 3.2). Then the

implementation of the Directive by Member States is discussed (section 3.3). In section 3.4 the

replies with respect to the impacts are discussed and in section 0 the replies with respect to the data

availability. In section 3.6 the replies and suggestion with respect to possible amendments are

summarised. Section 3.7 presented the main outcomes of the stakeholder workshop. Finally in

section 3.8 the main results from the stakeholders’ consultation process are briefly summarized.

3.2 Questionnaire responses

As the result of very actively stimulating and reminding government officials to fill out the

questionnaire, 63% of the governmental offices (17 out of 27) provided the filled questionnaire,

however in some cases with partial answers. Among the stakeholders invited to participate to the

survey, the replies to the questionnaire amounted to 31% (22 out of 72), also here with some

incompleteness. The majority of the stakeholders responding to the questionnaires is composed by

associations (64%, 14 out of 22 replies): most of these (6 replies) related to road safety, the others

varying from automobile manufacturers (1 reply), organization for environment (1 reply),

association of cyclists (1 reply), professional drivers (1 reply), road transport (1 reply), road freight

transport (1 reply), road traffic victims (1 reply), and driving school (1 reply). Other respondents

include research centres (4 replies), road safety specialists (2 replies) and governmental agencies (2

replies).

Below Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 list respectively the governmental contacts and the stakeholders

responding to the questionnaire. The list of all ministerial offices, experts70 and stakeholders

contacted can be found in Annex 6.

70 CARE experts and Road Safety experts were informed about the survey - they were in copy in the e-mails sent to

governmental contacts - and were not required to answer to the questionnaire.


Table 3-1: List of the governmental contacts responding to the questionnaire

Country Authority

AT Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovationand Technology

BE Federal Public Service Mobility and Transport

BG Ministry of Interior

DK Danish Transport Authority

EE Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications

FI Ministry of Transport and Communications

EL Ministry of Development, Competitiveness, Infrastructure, Transport and Networks

HU KTI Institute for Transport Sciences Non-Profit Ltd., Road Safety Centre

IE Road Safety Authority

IT Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport

LT State Road Transport inspectorate under the Ministry of Transport and Communications of the Republic of

Lithuania

LU Ministère du Développement durable et des Infrastructures, département des transports

LV Road Traffic Safety Directorate

PO National Road Safety Council, National Police Headquarters, General Inspectorate of Road Transport

RO Ministry of Transport – General Directorate Land Transport, Road Directorate

SK Ministry of Interior

UK Department for Transport


Table 3-2: List of stakeholders providing contribution to the survey

Country Stakeholders

BE Belgian Road Safety Institute

CZ DEKRA Automobila

HR MP EDUCON

DE German Road Safety Council

DE VDA Verband der Automobilindustrie

EL Centre for Research and Technology Hellas / Hellenic Institute of Transport

ES CNAE -Spanish Confederation of Driving Schools

ES CETM -Confederacion Espanola de Transporte de Mercancias

FR Association Prévention routière

IT Centro di Ricerca per il Trasporto e la Logistica, "Sapienza" Università di Roma

IT Dekra Automotive Italy

IT Fondazione ANIA per la Sicurezza Stradale

NO Norwegian Public Roads Administration

SI Slovenian traffic Safety Agency

SE Trafikverket- Swedish Transport Administration

UK ITS Leeds

EU ETSC- European Transport Safety Council

EU FEVR European Federation of Road Traffic Victims

EU Transport &Environment

EU European Cyclists’ Federation

World UICR- Union International des Chauffeurs Routiers

EU UETR- European Road haulers Association*

World IRU-International Road Transport Union

BE Transport & Logistieks Vlaanderen *

EU ASECAP-Association Européenne des Concessionnaires d'Autoroutes et d'ouvrages à Péage*

*stakeholders providing relevant comments without compiling the questionnaire

3.3 Implementation of the Speed Limitation Directive

The information collected on the implementation of speed limitation devices were mainly provided

by transport ministries and regard different issues such as problems encountered in implementing

the Speed Limitation Directive, the maximum speed allowed for vehicles on different type of roads,

checks on vehicles’ compliance with the Directive and maximum speed used for speed limiters.


3.3.1 Enforcement of the Speed Limitation Directive

According to the answers, no particular problems have been confronted for the implementation of

the Speed Limitation Directive. Few exceptions are Italy, which faced both administrative and

technical costs, Hungary, which experienced problems related to the manipulation of the speed

limitation devices, and Greece, which encountered high costs and administrative burdens.

3.3.2 Maximum speed allowed for vehicles on different types of roads.

The information regarding the maximum speed allowed to the different vehicle categories (M3, N3,

M2, N2, M1, N1) on the different type of roads (i.e. motorways, interurban roads and urban roads)

is available for all European Countries on the website of the Commission71, except for few missing

data. In order to cover the information gap, the questionnaire tried to gather the relevant data for

those countries, i.e. Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Latvia, Ireland and United Kingdom. All the ministries

replying to the questionnaire supplied the missing information. Speed limits applied in EU

countries are reported in Annex 3 together with the information on speed limits provided in the

questionnaire by the above mentioned countries.

3.3.3 Frequency of checks on vehicles' compliance with the Speed

Limitation Directive

Checks on vehicles' compliance with the Speed Limitation Directive are carried out yearly with few

exceptions: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria and Romania perform checks every two years while in UK

checks on vehicle compliance are carried out whenever vehicles are checked at the roadside.

Directive rules enforcement are verified through roadside inspections in all EU countries providing

the relevant information as reported in Annex 7 on the implementation of the Speed Limitation

Directive and the enforcement of checks.

3.3.4 Maximum speed used for speed limiters

According to the Speed Limitation Directive vehicles included in categories M3 and M2 should be

equipped with a speed limitation device set in such a way that their speed cannot exceed 100 km/h,

while vehicles belonging to category N2 and N3 should be equipped with speed limitation devices

set in such a way that their speed cannot exceed 90 km/h. Accordingly, all the countries replying to

the relevant question, comply with the provisions72. In UK, speed limiters are set at 62,5 mph and

56 mph respectively for passenger and heavy goods vehicles which correspond to the speed limits

in km/h required in the Directive.

Checks on the maximum speed used for speed limiters are mainly carried out during roadside

inspections such as in Austria, Poland and Romania or roadworthiness tests such as in Ireland and

Poland (specifications on information received on checks on the maximum speed used for speed

limiters are reported in Annex 7).

71 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/going_abroad/index_en.htm 72 The Road Safety Authority of Ireland specifies that some speed limit exemptions may apply to emergency service

vehicles.



3.4 Impacts of the Speed Limitation Directive

The following sections provide an overview of the responses regarding information and feedbacks

on the impacts of the speed limitation devices on different issues:

1. Impact on the trend of the stock of vehicles,

2. Impact on average speeds and speed profiles,

3. Impacts on emissions,

4. Impacts on road safety,

5. Impacts on the market.

Together with opinions about the impacts, governmental offices and stakeholders were asked to

suggest studies related to these issues; their list can be found in Annex 8. Studies provided most

frequently cover impacts on emissions and road safety. A specific question on the existence of

national policies with significant impacts on emissions and road safety was addressed to ministries

and governmental offices. Answers are listed in Annex 9.

3.4.1 Impacts of speed limitation devices on the stock of vehicles

The relation between the application of speed limiters and the stock of vehicles development seems

to be rather weak and difficult to trace. The CNAE- the Spanish Confederation of Driving Schools

- points out a relation between the installation of speed limitation devices and the trend of vehicles

weighing more than 3.5 tonnes since 2005. According to Dekra Automotive Italy, although the

Directive on speed limitation devices has not heavily affected vehicle sales, it led to an increase in

purchase choice of N1 vehicles to the detriment of N2 vehicles.

Other stakeholders point out that the trend in vehicle stock is affected by different variables such as

vehicle taxes (Norwegian Public Road Administration) or the cost of ownership which, according

to VDA Verband der Automobilindustrie, is the main criterion affecting the choice of vehicle

category. Also payload, transport purpose and cost (vehicle cost and fuel) are important factors.

The contact from the CERTH- Centre for Research and Technology Hellas believes that no

relation between the two exists, and the same position is also taken from the Slovenian Traffic

safety Agency.

3.4.2 Impacts of speed limitation devices on average speeds and

speed profiles

Different feedbacks have been provided by the stakeholders on the relation between speed

limitation devices and actual speed. According to the European Transport Safety Council speed

limiters affect the speeds of vehicles on roads where the highest speed is permitted such as

highways and motorways but when the posted speed limit is below that of the speed limiter, these

are unlikely to have an impact.

Many respondents highlight that the vehicle speed is actually also influenced by other variables than

speed limiters. The Norwegian Public Road Administration points out that since 2004 a minor

reduction in vehicle speed has been registered in Norway. However, in their opinion this fact may

have been influenced by massive informative campaigns addressing the importance of appropriate

speed performed, as well as by average speed cameras, which have demonstrated to be effective and

strong means of achieving a significant reduction in driving speeds on stretches of road where the

speed is initially higher than the speed limit. Also road design and traffic density play an important

role.


Quite different were the opinions of UICR (Union International des Chauffeurs Routiers), who

claims that speed limitation devices do affect the flow of traffic and could even lead to congestion,

and VDA, who believes that on average only 5% of the time the traffic flow is faster than 120

km/h in Europe73 and thus that there should be no need to limit the speed in a technical way.

Dekra Automotive Italy states that it is believed that the introduction of speed limiters do not have

a significant effect on vehicles speeds considering that speed limits for coaches on highways were

already below the speed limits imposed by the speed limiter.

3.4.3 Impacts of speed limitation devices on emissions

The concept that fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions are a function of speed, and that

managing speed is a very effective carbon abatement policy is agreed by various stakeholders,

including the European Transport Safety Council. In this respect the Danish Transport Authority

remarks that some of their enterprises have further reduced the speed limitation from 90 km/h to

85 km/h to save fuel.

Some stakeholders underline that market competition and the legislation on vehicle emissions has

promoted the improvement in terms of CO2 and pollutant emissions reduction which are deemed

to be more effective than the introduction of speed limitation devices. The Federal Public Service

Mobility and Transport of Belgium mentions studies showing that the impact of speed reduction of

HGVs on CO2 emissions is positive while the impact on the environment is negative for NOx and

PM emissions in the short term (in the long term the negative impact is reduced through the

introduction of stringent NOx and PM standards in the new European Norms)74.

The Italian Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure states that although, in principle, the limitation

of the maximum speed should have provided lower CO2 and pollutants emissions, an increase in

vehicles engine’s power has been observed, which could be put in relation to the need to keep

constant commercial speed under heavy conditions of use, i.e. uphill and/or with full load.

A different point of view is presented by VDA, who states that there are already a number of

specific measures addressing emissions reduction in Europe and that in the case of Germany

several studies have shown that the effectiveness of a general speed limit for CO2-reductions is

limited (Umweltbundesamt – Federal Environmental Agency, ADAC) and its benefit mainly applies

to LCVs.

Governmental authorities have also mentioned specific national policies that have had a direct

impact on emission reductions, such as the introduction of gas vehicles (in Estonia75), circulation

bans for HCVs (in Greece and in Hungary), local measures for traffic restrictions and promotion of

cleaner vehicles (in Italy). More details are available in the complete list in Annex 9.

73Vehicle speed distributions in Europe, WLTP-database (Steven, March 2011). 74 Studies: VITO, FEBIAC and Transport & Mobility Leuven. 75 In Estonia the government has introduced a strategic plan for the introduction of gas vehicles: the state and local

governments have bought gas buses for public transport.


3.4.4 Impacts of speed limitation devices on road safety

The positive impact of speed limiters on road safety is clearly recognized by different stakeholders

providing feedbacks on the specific issue. The Norwegian Public Road Administration reports that

some commercial transportation companies have experienced a reduction in costs of fuel and cost

of accidents thanks to the introduction of speed limitation devices.

Transport and Environment points out that the introduction of speed limitation devices to HGVs

has a positive impact on road safety both by reducing the likelihood that accidents will occur

(braking distances, reaction speed) and by reducing the impact of crashes (reduced kinetic energy),

also taking into consideration that while they represent only 3% of vehicles and 7% of vehicle/km,

HGVs are responsible for 18% of traffic fatalities. They emphasise that setting speed limiters at

identical levels for all HGVs in Europe puts a de facto stop to HGV overtaking on highways,

which is a major accident risk according to the German national Police union, who have supported

the call for EU harmonization of 80km/h limiters for HGVs (Verkehrsrundschau 5/2011). Speed

limitation devices have also been shown to reduce approach speeds at intersections, curves, and

roundabouts76.

VDA and other stakeholders affirm that different measures have lead to a decrease in number of

fatalities such as driver education, rescue service, road infrastructure and vehicle technology, while a

few countries indicate also the positive impact on road safety of police enforcement measures.

In Denmark these regard mandatory control of mirror adjustment, overtaking prohibited

on motorways on certain times or distances, road construction to avoid “black spots”.

In Hungary the measures regarding the ban of HGV traffic in weekends and the general

prohibition of overtaking for HGVs have effects not only on emissions as reported in the

preceding section but also on road safety.

In Ireland road safety measures regard the installation of safety belts on buses and in

particular on buses involved in the organized transport of children, and the permission for

six axle articulated vehicles to operate at a gross combination weight of 46 tonnes if

conform with specific standards such as the use of Electronic Braking Systems (EBS),

Electronic Stability Control (ESC), Roll Stability Control (RSC).

In Romania the following national policies have been reported: extension of social

legislation (AETR Agreement) and legislation on transport of dangerous goods (ADR

agreement) to national transport operations, professional training of drivers of HGVs and

Public Service Vehicles.

In UK several safety measures have been implemented since 2002, such as banning the use

of mobile phones whilst driving, the publication of Government’s road safety strategy, the

power given to police to seize uninsured vehicles being driven on the road, the publication

of the Road Safety Act making provision on different road safety matters including drink

driving, speeding, driver training, driver and vehicle licensing, campaigns against drink and

drug driving, the Strategic framework for road Safety publication setting out the

76Sources:

CTBSSP, Safety Impacts of Speed Limiter Device Installations on Commercial Lorries and Buses, 2008.

BEES (2010): Technology and approaches to reducing the fuel consumption of medium and heavy duty

vehicles, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems, National Research Council, USA ;

TRB (2008): Safety impacts of speed limiter device installations on commercial lorries and buses.

Varhelyi and Makinen, “The Effects of In-Car Speed Limiters: Field Studies,” Transportation Research Part”

2001.


Government’s approach to continuing to reduce killed and seriously injured casualties on

Britain’s roads.

In Italy several information campaigns were performed to increase awareness and train

professional drivers.

3.4.5 Market Impacts of speed limitation devices

Some stakeholders have provided relevant feedbacks on the effects of speed limitation devices on

the market. These mainly regard the shift between vehicle categories i.e. a shift from heavier to

lighter vehicles and changes in vehicle design.

The Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport states that, while it could be reasonable to

think of a shift from heavier to lighter vehicles relative to borderline vehicles (light N2 vehicles), it

is also important to mention that other elements such as professional driving license and

tachograph play an important role in this respect. Other stakeholders mention different parameters

that have an influence on the size of the vehicle used for transport such as road charge, cargo

weight, changing customer demand (e.g. urban deliveries in connection with internet shopping), etc.

Dekra Automotive Italy underlines that the extension of speed limiters to N2, M2 and M3 with

gross weight less than 10 tons lead to an increase of N1 category which could substitute N2

vehicles but the shift regard only this type of vehicles.

The point of view of Transport & Environment on this subject is different. According to them, the

competition between vans and HGVs is distorted, as EU legislation makes vans artificially faster

and heavier to drive than light HGVs. In fact vans are favoured with respect to HGVs by EU

legislation in relation to

a) mandatory speed limiters for HGVs and not for vans

b) mandatory tachograph for HGVs and not for vans

c) regulation of work and rest times for HGVs and not for vans

d) inclusion of Eurovignette charges for HGVs and exclusion for vans

e) special driving licence required for HGVs and not for vans

Transport & Environment view is that these measures have consequences on vehicles fleet. In the

years 1995 - 2010, vans fleet grew much faster than light HGVs’ fleet (60% in comparison to 25%)

and the main share of the growth was in new member states and Spain. In other countries the fleet

shrank (Germany, for example, counts 11% less light HGVs in 2010 than it did in 200077) and

recent data confirm the long term trend78. Mandatory speed limiters for vans would then address

the tendency to use vans as fast and cheap substitutes for light HGVs.

As for vehicle design some stakeholders observe that the vans’ power have been increasing in the

recent years but whether and in which measure this trend could be correlated with the speed

limiters introduction is difficult to define although one way to maintain a good commercial speed

with the speed limitation is to increase the vehicle power in order to be able to keep constant speed

under any travel conditions i.e. uphill and full load.

77TREMOVE database, vehicle stock 78ANFAC, Motorvehicles in use in 2008, 2010.


3.5 Availability of quantitative data

The questionnaire on speed limitation devices includes a section on the availability of quantitative

data on:

The stock of vehicles.

Speed detected.

Road safety.

Frauds detected.

Data have mainly been required per vehicle categories (M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3) and for periods

before and after the implementation of the Speed Limitation Directive in order to verify if there is a

relation between the obligation of installing the speed limiters on vehicles and the trends in vehicle

stock, accidents and frauds detected. Data on the stock of vehicles are available for most of the

countries but given the disparities in data differentiation, harmonisation between countries cannot

be easily provided. Also data on road accidents have been indicated but only few data differentiated

per M and N categories have been provided. The list of the type of data collected per issue is

reported in Annex 10.

3.6 Possible amendments to the Speed Limitation Directive

Both governmental contacts and stakeholders have been asked to indicate options for amending the

Speed Limitation Directive according to the following possible amendments:

Speed limits for HGVs:

‒ Keep the current speed limits for HGVs ;

‒ Increase the speed limits for HGVs;

‒ Decrease the speed limits for HGVs.

Extension of the speed limitation devices to LCVs:

‒ Extend the requirement for using speed limitation devices to light commercial goods vehicles (N1 category);

‒ Introduce speed limitation devices for light commercial passenger vehicles like minibuses/vans (M1 category).

Introduction of the ISA systems:

‒ Introduce ISA (Intelligent Speed Assistance/Adaptation) systems for some or all commercial vehicles.

3.6.1 Speed Limits for HGVs

Almost all the governmental contacts (82%) and the majority of the stakeholders (59%) agree to

keep the current speed limits for HGVs (see Figure 3-1). Only 9% of the stakeholders and 6% of

governmental contacts are in favour of the possibility to decrease speed limits for HGVs79. Only

the 5% of the stakeholders and none of the governmental contacts agree to increase the speed

limits for HGVs.

79 To this regard Transport & Environment believes that speed limiters for lorries have had multiple positive effects on

safety and environment (air pollution, noise) thus reducing the maximum speed of lorries to 80km/h would help reducing

CO2 and other emissions, improve road safety and help enforcing existing speed limits in about half of EU countries.


Figure 3-1: Share of the preferences expressed by governmental contacts and stakeholders on options

for amendments on the speed limits for HGVs

3.6.2 Extension of the speed limitation devices to LCVs

More contradictory is the opinion on the application of speed limitation devices to light commercial

goods vehicles (N1) and on the introduction of speed limitation devices for light commercial

passenger vehicles like minibuses/vans:

‒ 29% of governmental contacts and 50% of stakeholders believe that speed limitation

devices should be extended to LGVs (N1).

‒ 18% of governmental contacts and 50% of stakeholders agree on the introduction of

speed limitation devices to light commercial passenger vehicles like minibuses/vans

(M1 category).

As for the possibility to extend speed limitation devices to LGVs (N1 category), two opposite

positions emerge: on the one side Transport & Environment claims that such extension would have

positive impacts both on emissions and road safety (shielding drivers from ever increasing pressure

to deliver as quickly as possible and put a brake on competing by speeding80) and on the other side,

80 In particular Transport & Environment points out that the introduction of speed limiters to vans would lead to a

substantial reduction of causalities and injuries. On the basis of studies, they highlight that there is a high percentage of

fatalities involving vans both at European and national level. Accordingly, on a European scale, the number of fatalities

decreased by 34% between 2000 and 2008. At the same time fatalities involving vans only decreased of 26%.

In Germany between 1995 and 2007 the number of accident with injury involving vans increasedof 22% (Bast). For vans

with a weight between 2.8t and 3.5t there was a 360% increase between 1996 and 2006. Alarmed by the high risks linked

to vans driving at high speeds the German Union of Insurers (GDV) demanded vans to be mandatorily equipped with

speed limiters in 2003

(http://www.gdv.de/Presse/Pressearchiv_Linkliste/Pressemeldungen_2003___Uebersicht/inhaltsseite11786.html).

In Belgium, between 1991 and 2007 the number of accidents with injuries on motorways involving vans increasedof 83%

(De Mol). In the United Kingdom accidents related to vans seem to have followed the general trend. However, whereas

accident reduction trends for vans followed or emulated general trends (1993-2003), “the fatality rate for accidents

involving vans has risen or stayed constant, contrary to other trends vans are involved in a higher proportion of fatal

accidents than average.” The situation in the Netherlands is similar.

Sources: CE Delft, Speed limiters for vans in Europe, Environmental and safety impacts, 2010; De Mol, J., Abnormaal

veel ongevallen met bestelwagens, Verkeersspecialist (158), 2009, 28; De Mol:

http://biblio.ugent.be/input/download?func=downloadFile&fileOId=1131525; Smith, Tanya, Analysis of accidents

involving light commercial vehicles in the UK, 2005, p1-5.

82%

0% 6%

12%

Answers of MSs

59%

5%

9%

27%

Answers of stakeholders

Keep the current speed limits for heavy goods vehicles

Increase the speed limits for heavy goods vehicles

Decrease limits for heavy goods vehicles

No answer

http://www.gdv.de/Presse/Pressearchiv_Linkliste/Pressemeldungen_2003___Uebersicht/inhaltsseite11786.html

http://biblio.ugent.be/input/download?func=downloadFile&fileOId=1131525


VDA, which asserts that such extension would result to a negligible reduction of CO2 emissions

only and appeals to the “principle of subsidiarity” suggesting that speed limit itself is a question of

national law.

3.6.3 Introduction of ISA systems

Questions on the option of introducing ISA to commercial vehicles have been differently

formulated to governmental contacts and stakeholders. The formers have been asked to express

preferences on the type of ISA system to be introduced while the second have been asked to

express attitudes. Accordingly the following results have been registered.

35% of the governmental contacts and 82% of the stakeholders believes that ISA system should be

introduced to all commercial vehicles. To this regard, the majority believe that a supportive or

informative ISA system is the best option, with a slight favour towards supportive ISA systems.

Preferences and attitudes on the ISA type expressed respectively by governmental contacts and

stakeholders are reported in the following table.

Table 3-3: Governmental contacts preferences and Stakeholders’ attitudes toward the introduction of

ISA system to all commercial vehicles

ISA type Member States’ preferences

Informative 33%

Supportive 50%

Informative/Supportive 17%

Mandatory 0%

ISA type

Stakeholders’ attitudes

Positive Neutral Negative

Informative 72% 17% 6%

Supportive 89% 17% 11%

Mandatory 56% 11% 17%

Besides the options for amendments, some stakeholders expressed further opinions on the

possibility to introduce ISA system to commercial vehicles, which further support the idea of

introducing informative, supportive or mandatory ISA system. According to the Hellenic Institute

of Transport there should be a sufficient time period of drivers’ adaptation before intervening to

driving tasks. ISA systems of an informative type would be easier accepted, more reliable to be

implemented in the short term and less expensive with respect to more advanced systems. In line,

ETSC suggests a step-wise approach to introduce ISA, with a culmination in an intervening system.

The Association Prevention Routière believes that legal and technical obstacles should however be

solved before deploying the mandatory system.

As for stakeholders supporting the possibility of introducing a more stringent type of ISA

(supportive and mandatory) the following justifications have been provided.

ITS Leeds believes that all the empirical work on ISA systems so far has indicated that the

stronger the system, the greater the effectiveness. There are almost no rational arguments

against the prevention of speed violation through ISA systems, and ISA systems have very

high benefit to cost ratios. In terms of saving lives across Europe, it is almost impossible to

think of any other intervention with equivalent safety potential to ISA systems.

The Swedish Transport Administration thinks that supportive/warning ISA systems have

shown significant safety effects. A stringent speed control and enforcement is also good

for fair commercial competition. Lower technical margins in the speed limiter systems

would make the competition fairer. Law breaking should not be part of a business plan as

it is today.


The European Cyclists’ Federation remarks that it is easy to ignore a warning signal if a

delivery has to be made on time. Therefore, mandatory interventions built into the vehicle

would mean slower speeds for HGVs trying to make delivery times, without competitive

distortion.

The Slovenian Traffic Safety Agency is strongly in favour of mandatory ISA systems:

mandatory implementation of ISA systems for all commercial vehicles would be a

significant factor in increasing traffic safety. Excessive speed is the main factor in causation

and severity of traffic accidents. ISA systems would help to maintain all drivers' focus on

an appropriate speed, which would result in a more efficient traffic flow and less possibility

of encountering dangerous traffic situations.

Transport & Environment states that the introduction of ISA systems is an ideal solution

but in the current situation this could be difficult to introduce. That is why the speed limit

reduction for HGVs to 80km/h and the introduction of speed limitation devices for LCVs

would be the most important measures to implement, as these are technically simple and

very cost-effective. Also the roll-out of advisory ISA systems should be encouraged: these

will become part of the EURO-NCAP requirements and are thus likely to be fitted onto

most new passenger cars in the coming years but since EURO-NCAP doesn’t cover

commercial vehicles, additional action may be required to promote ISA systems in vans

and HGVs. Mandating advisory ISA for new vans and HGVs would be a way to stimulate

and promote the use and development of these systems, paving the way for mandatory ISA

systems that prevent drivers from exceeding speed limits at any given moment.

Dekra Automotive Italy suggests that vehicles should be equipped with a system which

excludes the function of the speed limitation for the period of time necessary to overtaking

in order to facilitate these operations (for example by defining a system connected to the

accelerator pedal for driving while overtaking). Pursuant to Dekra Automotive Italy, ISA

systems should be introduced to all commercial vehicles in order to make up for

inadequate checks during technical inspections and insufficient controls at the roadside.

Finally the road Safety Authority of Ireland explains that ISA systems for category N2, N3,

M2 & M3 vehicles would involve significant investment by the state in ensuring that

appropriate speed signage is placed on all roads and that the speed limits assigned are

actually suitable. In this regard they are currently conducting a nationwide audit of speed

limit and would therefore recommend that any decision on the mandatory introduction of

ISA throughout the EU is postponed until this audit has been completed to ensure that all

speed restrictions are both safe and sensible81.

3.7 Stakeholders’ workshop

The stakeholders’ conference took place on June 10th 2013 at the Albert Borschette Conference

Centre in Brussels. At the conference the project team presented the draft results on the survey as

well as the draft results of the ex-post evaluation of the Speed Limitation Directive and the

methodology for the ex-ante evaluations of various scenarios for amending it.

The presentations and the minutes of the conference are available on the following website:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/events-archive/2013_06_10_speed_limitation_en.htm;

while the list of attendants is included in Annex 5.

81http://www.transport.ie/pressRelease.aspx?Id=495

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/events-archive/2013_06_10_speed_limitation_en.htm


The conference was characterised by a lot of interaction and lively participation of the attendants.

In relation to the ex-post analysis, the participants endorsed the methodology proposed by the team

and no significant changes were required. The questionnaire was well received and the interim

survey results that were presented corresponded to what was expected by the stakeholders. There

was general consensus about the fact that the analysis results of safety statistics were inconclusive:

there is a decrease in accidents but there is insufficient data to determine if this is due to the speed

limiters. Also the draft results from the model simulation generally corresponded to the experience

and expectations of the stakeholders. Eventually, the methodology for the ex-ante analysis was

considered as appropriate and the workshop gave no reason to change the proposed scenarios for

HCVs and LCVs.

3.8 Main findings

The survey can be considered quite successful in terms of data and opinions gathered: 63% of the

governmental contacts and 31% of the stakeholders responded to the questionnaire. While the

information collected confirms the initial expectation of poor availability of quantitative data related

to the specific M and N categories and related to the period before and after the implementation of

the Directive, relevant feedbacks on the effects of speed limitation devices on vehicle stock, market

impacts and above all on road safety and emissions have been provided by the respondents.

As for the effects of speed limiters on emissions and road safety, stakeholders seem overall to agree

on the positive relation existing between the speed limiters introduction and the reduction of

pollutants and road accidents. With respect to the effects on market and vehicle stock, the majority

of the respondents state that the relation between the speed limiter introduction and the vehicles

stock trend is difficult to isolate from other factors.

In relation to the possible amendments of the Directive, the majority of stakeholders and

governmental contacts agree to keep the current speed limits for HGVs. More contradictory is the

opinion on the application of speed limitation devices to LGVs (N1) and light commercial

passenger vehicles like minibuses/vans (M1): government contacts are mainly against both options

while half of the stakeholders believe that speed limitation devices should be extended to lighter

vehicles because of benefits in terms both of road safety and emissions reduction.

Finally, 35% of governmental contacts and 82% of the stakeholders believe that ISA system should

be introduced to all commercial vehicles, above all in the form of informative or supportive

systems.

Also the stakeholder workshop provided useful input to the analysis. The draft results that were

presented generally corresponded to the experience and expectations of the stakeholders. The

methodology was considered as appropriate and the workshop gave no reason to change the

proposed scenarios for HCVs and LCVs. The literature and data sources suggested at the

stakeholder conference have been included and investigated.


4 Ex-post evaluation HCVs

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter the results of the ex-post evaluation of the application of the Speed Limitation

Directive to HGVs and buses are presented. First, section 4.2 describes the main results with

respect to impacts on speeds driven. Next section 4.3 describes the findings on the safety impacts,

section 4.4 the findings on the emission impacts and section 4.5 the findings on the market impacts.

Finally section 0 summarizes the main findings of the ex-post analysis.

4.2 Impacts on speed

The main driver of the effects on safety and emission is the change in speed and speed distribution.

In order to determine the effect on the speed, an analysis was made of historical speed

distributions. Only the UK has information on speed distributions, disaggregated according to

vehicle and road types over a long enough period. Unfortunately the disaggregation with respect to

speed classes is very rough. The figure below shows the speed distribution for the UK for the years

2002-2011 for HGVs with 5 axles and the distribution for all HGVs in France, Belgium and

Ireland.

Figure 4-1: Speed distribution for HGVs with 5 axles in the UK and all HGVs in Belgium, France and

Ireland

There is no time series on speed distributions long enough to assess the impact of the first

implementation of the Speed Limitation Directive. This graph seems to suggest that the

amendment by Directive 2002/85/EC did not have an impact on the speed distribution, nor on the

average speed. Hence, at the time of the amendment, the Directive would probably not have had a

large impact either. This may have to do with the fact that according to these data, before the


mandatory introduction of speed limiters on N2 vehicles, the speed of almost all HGVs in the UK

was yet below the speed set by the limiter. Furthermore this database for the driving speeds prior to

the introduction of the limiters is very weak.

Moreover, now the question arises: what would be the speed distribution today? Today, the vehicles

are much more powerful and more energy efficient while also the road infrastructure has improved.

The remainder of the analysis will be based on more theoretical speed distributions. For the

situation of today, with speed limiters, two cases are relevant:

- A speed distribution for a country in which the posted speed limit82 is higher than or equal

to the speed determined by the speed limiter (90 km/h for HGVs and 100 km/h for

buses). This is the case in for example Belgium where the speed limit on motorways for

HGVs is 90 km/h. In this case the speed limiter determines the maximum driving speed

for a significant share of the HGVs.

- A speed distribution for a country in which the posted speed limit is lower than the speed

determined by the speed limiter. This is the case in Ireland where the posted speed limit on

motorways for HGVs is 80 km/h. In this case the speed enforcement in a country will play

an important role. The speed limiter will only limit the top offences and have a relatively

limited impact.

For the ex-post evaluation, we need to compare the current speeds with the theoretical case in

which there would be no speed limiters. In this case we assume that the speeds would be normally

distributed around the average speed.

When speed limiters are applied, the speed distributions change. Because of the speed limiter,

vehicles with a speed limiter cannot drive faster than the speed limit so those who were driving

faster will slow down. When a speed limitation device is in place, the distribution of speeds has a

cut-off point at the set speed limit (see also section 2.6.5).

Hence, assuming a posted speed limit of 90 km/h, the blue line in Figure 4-2 shows the distribution

in case there is no speed limiter. The red line shows the distribution if there is a speed limiter, but

set at a speed of 100 km/h and the green line shows the distribution if the speed limiter is set at the

level of the posted speed limit of 90 km/h.

If the speed limit in a country is lower than the speed set by the speed limiter, this means that the

general enforcement of that country plays a higher role in determining the average speed than the

limiter itself. For the distribution this means that the standard deviation is higher if the speed

limiter is set higher than the speed limit than in the case it set a lower speed.

82 This is the speed limit for a road as posted on the traffic signs. These differ per Member State and road type.


Figure 4-2: Speed distributions for HGVs in cases with and without speed limiter

In function of the current speed limits in each country, it was determined on a case-by-case what

speed distribution with a speed limiter was relevant for that country, i.e. speed limiter set higher

than posted speed limit or other way round. The distribution with speed limiter chosen as well as

the distribution without speed limiter were then centred around the average speed, which depends

on the speed limit in place.

The table below shows the average speed and the standard deviation without a speed limiter (i.e.

the before situation) on motorways for the HCVs currently equipped with a speed limiter. The

average speed and the standard deviation are based on real life measurements for the UK, Belgium,

France, Finland, Ireland and Austria83. The table also shows the average speed and standard

deviation on motorways with a speed limiter set at 90 km/h for HGVs and 100 km/h for the

buses. A distinction is made between countries with high and low posted speed limits.

Table 4-1: Average speed and standard deviation for HCVs without and with a speed limiter, motorways

Before (no speed limiter)

After (with speed limiter)

Member State type Vehicle

Posted speed limit

Average speed

Speed deviation

Speed limiter

Average speed

Speed deviation

Change in average speed

Low HGV 80 85 6 90 84 5 -1%

Low Bus 90 95 6 100 94 5 -1%

High HGV 90 90 6 90 87 3 -3%

High Bus 100 100 6 100 97 3 -3%

Source: own assumptions based on measured data (Annex 16).

83 The real life data can be found in Annex 16


4.3 Impacts on safety

4.3.1 Introduction

In this section the results on the safety impacts are presented for the ex-post evaluation. First, the

results of the time series analysis are presented in section 4.3.2. Then, the results of the second

approach are presented in 4.3.3, relying on the methodology set out and discussed in sections 2.6

and 2.7. Finally, the synthesis of both approaches is presented in section 4.3.4.

4.3.2 Estimation of safety impacts based on time series analysis

In the first step an analysis is made based on the evolution over time (1995-2011 when possible) of

the accident risk for fatal accidents where HGVs or “buses and coaches” are involved. By

considering the accident risk84 – defined as the absolute number of accidents divided by the total

vehicle-kilometres driven in a country by HGVs or buses respectively - the analysis corrects for

trends which are due to the continuous increase in traffic. For both HGVs and buses we analysed

the evolution of the accident risk and the centred moving means of the accident risk85. For more

details, see section 2.7.3.

The analysis shown below focuses on the results for the EU1586 as a whole for HGVs and buses.

This means that we summed the number of accidents of the individual countries to come to one

number for the EU15. The technical approach and the results for the individual countries are

included in Annex 11. Over the period 1995-2010, Figure 4-3 shows a reduction in the accident risk

in Europe with HGVs involved. When controlling for temporal fluctuations by using the centred

moving averages, a similar reduction is found.

Figure 4-3: Fatal accident risk with HGVs involved

Source: own calculations based on CARE database and Eurostat.

84 The full report also shows the analysis for the absolute number of accidents with fatalities where a HGV or a bus is

involved. 85 By using centred moving means the numbers are controlled for small yearly influences and the focus lies on the larger

trends. 86 Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal,

Finland, Sweden, UK.


A first order linear trend-line achieves an R² of 0.95, suggesting a strong linear effect over time87.

This suggests that a maintained, yet stable reduction in the fatal accident risk per vehicle-kilometre

has been achieved over the period of 1995 up to 2008.

Similar findings can be made for accident risk for buses and coaches. A high R² of 0.99 indicates

that the majority of the reduction in fatal accident risk can be accounted for by a sole linear

parameter (time).

Figure 4-4: Fatal accident risk with buses and coaches involved

Overall, there is no indication that within the period 2005-2007, a single element like the

introduction of speed limiters on N2 and M2 vehicles, has contributed or brought changes to the

continuous increase in traffic safety. Hence, purely looking at the accident data, no safety effect can

be attributed to the implementation of the Speed Limitation Directive.

However, it should be noticed that due to data limitations, this analysis was carried out for all road

types, while speed limiters mainly have impacts on motorways. The share of fatal accidents on

motorways in the total of fatal accidents with HCVs involved is relatively small (about 13%).

4.3.3 Estimation of safety impacts based on changes in speed distributions

In this section we present the results of the second approach applied for assessing the safety

impacts. The data on the number of accidents were retrieved from the CARE88 database. Table 4-2

shows the accidents on motorways (which is a selection of Table A-5 that can be found in Annex

12). The total number of accidents, fatal accidents and serious injury accidents are displayed. Not in

every accident, a HGV or bus was involved. These numbers and percentages are also shown. The

low number of accidents with buses on motorways makes this estimation uncertain.

87 R² provides a measure of how well observed outcomes are replicated by the model – the maximum value is 1. 88 For the accident data the average number of accidents for the 4 most recent available years was taken, if there was

sufficient data available. Member States with insufficient data were left out of the analysis (BG, EE, IT, CY, LV, LT, MT,

FI)


Table 4-2: Accidents rates on motorways

fatal accidents serious injury accidents all injury accidents

percentage of total percentage of total percentage of total

Total 1667 100% 9390 100% 52370 100%

HGV involved 507 30% 2159 23% 9714 19%

Bus involved 38 2% 97 1% 489 1%

The effects of the implementation of speed limitation devices for HGVs and buses were estimated

from the speed impacts. For this a simulation was used, that simulates the speed distribution

without a speed limiter in every Member State and the effect on speeds due to the speed limiter.

The effect on the number of accidents is determined by the reduction in average speed. The change

in average speed due to the implementation of the speed limiter depends on the initial speeds

driven. This is shown in the tables below. These percentages have been calculated by applying the

power functions (see section 2.7.4 and Annex 12).

Table 4-3: Impacts on accidents rates on motorways in Member States with high or low89 posted speed

limits (based on Elvik, 2009)

Member State with posted speed limits

Low High

HGVs

Average speed -1% -3%

Fatal accidents -4% -11%

Serious injury accidents -2% -7%

All injury accidents -1% -5%

Buses

Average speed -1% -3%

Fatal accidents -3% -10%

Serious injury accidents -2% -7%

All injury accidents -1% -4%

Amongst the EU Member States, the maximum speeds are very different for HGVs and buses (and

also for cars). The results show that according to this analysis, speed limiter has little effect in a

Member State where the posted speed limits are more than 10 km/h below the limit of the speed

limiter (as in the ‘Low’ case shown above).

The decrease in average speed in Member States with high posted speed limits on motorways was

about 3% due to the implementation of the speed limiter. This resulted in a decrease of accidents.

This analysis was carried out for every Member State and the percentages were applied to the

accident data per Member State with HGVs or buses involved. The aggregated results at the EU

level are shown in Table 4-4. The table indicates the average reduction in accidents in number and

in percentage due to a decrease in speed, based on average accident data for the years 2008-2011.

89 The low posted speed limits are 80 km/h for HGVs and 90 km/h for buses on motorways, which means that the

posted speed limit is was lower than the speed limiter. The high posted speed limits are 90 km/h for HGVs and 100

km/h for buses on motorways.


Table 4-4: Impacts on the number of accidents on motorways (based on Elvik, 2009)

Accidents (average number of

accidents in the EU for the period

2008-2011)

Reduction due to a

decrease in speed % reduction

With HGV

involved Fatal accidents 507 -43 -9%

Serious injury accidents 2,159 -89 -4%

All injury accidents 9,714 -281 -3%

With Bus

involved Fatal accidents 38 -5 -13%

Serious injury accidents 97 -6 -7%

All injury accidents 489 -21 -4%

Source: own calculations based on CARE database

This analysis is sensitive for the assumptions made with respect to the speeds that HCV would be

driving today if no speed limiter would be in place. This is also clear from the difference in effects

between a Member State with high posted speed limits and a Member State with low posted speed

limits. Therefore a sensitivity analysis has been carried out, testing the hypothesis that speeds

without speed limiter would be 5 km/h higher than the ones listed in Table 2-12 (see 2.6.5). This

assessment has been carried out for HGVs and buses combined. The results of this assessment are

shown in Table 4-5.

Table 4-5: Impacts on the number of accidents on motorways in Member States with higher assumed

vehicle speeds or speed deviations for the case without speed limiter (based on Elvik, 2009)

Accidents Reduction due to a decrease in speed % reduction

HCV involved Fatal accidents 545 -48 -9%



Speeds 5 km/h higher Fatal accidents 545 -116 -21%



Speed deviation 1,5 km/h higher Fatal accidents 545 -62 -11%



Source: own calculations based on CARE database

It becomes clear that in the case HGVs would drive 5km/h faster without speed limiter, the effects

of the speed limiters are more than two times larger than the base case shown in Table 4-4.

The same analysis is tested for a higher speed deviation. If the speed dispersion is assumed 1.5 km

higher than in the base case, the accident reduction percentages are 1-2% higher, depending on the

accident severity. This is a relative small difference, compared to the impacts from changing the

assumptions for the average speed.

Given the uncertainty in the vehicle speeds and speed deviations in the case when there would be

no speed limiters, it is therefore not possible to provide a precise estimate of the safety impacts of

speed limiters. However, the results presented above provide a bandwidth that can be regarded as a

reasonable estimate of the safety impacts deriving from the introduction of speed limiters. Beside,

the speed limiter has caused the speed deviation in the total traffic flow to increase by 1-3%, which

leads to more encounters and more overtaking manoeuvres. There are clear indications that this has


a negative effect on road safety, which means that the effect of the Directive may have been smaller

than what was estimated. However these effects are difficult to quantify.

4.3.4 Synthesis

The results of the time series analysis did not reveal any significant impacts on traffic safety. This

does not mean that the Directive did not have any safety effects, as the implementation covered

several years and the impacts may be blurred by the general trends in improving traffic safety and

by the fact that mainly motorway accidents are reduced, while fatal accidents on motorways

constitute only 13% of all fatal accidents with HCVs involved.

The modelling based on changes in vehicle speeds and the relations between speed and traffic

safety shows that the Directive has resulted in a reduction in the number of fatal accidents on

motorways with HCVs involved of about 9%. This corresponds to a reduction of about 50 fatal

accidents a year.

This estimate is relatively uncertain and should be interpreted with care, as some of the main

assumptions and input data are relatively uncertain, particularly with respect to changes in speed. In

case the impacts on vehicle speed have been higher than assumed, the safety impacts will also have

been higher. On the other hand, not only the average speed changed, but also the speed dispersion.

Because HCVs decreased their speed compared to the rest of the traffic flow, the speed dispersion

in the total traffic flow has increased. There are clear indications in the literature that this has a

negative effect on road safety.

Unfortunately, there is a lack of sufficient data to be able to distinguish clear road safety impacts of

introducing speed limitation devices in vehicle categories N2 and M2, as required by the legislator

in Directive 2002/85/EC. For this, both traffic data and accident data differentiated to M2, M3, N2

and N3 would be needed. However, the differentiation between the smaller vehicle types (M2 and

N2) and the larger ones (M3 and N3) can be made for neither traffic data nor safety statistics.

4.4 Impacts on emissions

The emission levels on motorways for HGV and buses were retrieved from TREMOVE (see 2.8)

and are shown in Table 4-6. About 2/3 of the emissions issue from HGVs.

Table 4-6: Emission levels on motorways (year: 2010)

CO2 NOx PM

emissions

(tonnes)

percentage of

total

emissions

(tonnes)

percentage of

total

emissions

(tonnes)

percentage of

total

HGV 28.214.604 69% 192.332 63% 4.020 68%

Bus 12.509.377 31% 113.671 37% 1.857 32%

HCV

total 40.723.981 100% 306.003 100% 5.877 100%

In EU Member States, speed limiters are mandatory for buses and HGVs. The effects of these

speed limiters on the vehicles emissions were modelled using VERSIT+ and are shown in Table

4-7. The impact of speed limiters on emissions is shown for Member States with low and high

posted speed limits, and is presented separately for HGVs and buses.


Table 4-7: Effect of introduction of speed limiters on CO2, NOx and PM emissions for HGVs and buses on

motorways for Member States with low and high posted speed limits

Member State with posted speed limits

Low High

HGVs

CO2 0% -1%

NOx 0% -1%

PM 0% -1%

Buses

CO2 0% -2%

NOx 0% -2%

PM 0% -2%

The introduction of speed limiters lowered the emissions of all three studied components (i.e. CO2,

NOx and PM) with 0% to 2%. This is the result of less deceleration and acceleration and a lower

average speed. The larger the difference between the average speed before the introduction of the

speed limiter and the speed limiter speed, the higher the emissions reduction.

The reduction can be decomposed in two components. The first one is a lower average velocity

with a lower rolling resistance and air-drag. The second component is lower dynamics, with less

braking, which will decrease the CO2 emission as well, but will mainly affect the pollutant emissions

which have a stronger dependence on dynamics.

Fuel consumptions, and therefore (CO2) emissions, increase more than linearly with an increasing

velocity, because e.g. drag increases more than linearly with increasing velocity. Since the initial

velocity of buses in higher than that of HGVs, the emission reduction resulting from the

introduction of speed limiters in higher for buses than for HGVs.

The standard deviations, resulting from the drive cycles of HCVs and used to determine the

impacts of speed limiters on vehicle emissions, differ from what is used in the road safety

calculations, because of the difference in choice of speed distribution and speed profiles used. The

emission analysis is based on speed profiles of actual individual vehicles, while the safety is based

on a distribution of average velocities of a vehicle fleet.

The emission reduction effects calculated above were applied to all Member States based on their

posted speed limits and aggregated to the EU level. The overall emission reductions of CO2, NOx

and PM of the emissions by HCVs on motorways in the EU27 are approximately close to 0% for

HGVs and about 2% for buses. They are shown in Table 4-8 for HGVs and buses.

Table 4-8: Ex-post emission reduction by trucks and buses on motorways in EU27 (year: 2010)

Emissions (tonnes) Reduction due to a decrease in speed

(tonnes)

% reduction

HGV CO2 28.214.604 -126.592 0%

NOx 192.332 -1.020 -1%

PM 4.020 -19 0%

Bus CO2 12.509.377 -199.670 -2%

NOx 113.671 -1.962 -2%

PM 1.857 -30 -2%


Similarly to what was done for safety impacts, a sensitivity analysis was carried out, assuming an

average speed without speed limiter which is 5km/h higher. For HGVs and buses combined, the

emission reduction is approximately 1%. This is shown in Table 4-9.

Table 4-9: Effect of introduction of speed limiters on CO2, NOx and PM emissions for HGVs and buses in

case of a higher assumed average speed before the introduction of the speed limiter

Emissions (tonnes)

Reduction due to a

decrease in speed (tonnes)

% reduction

HCV CO2 40.723.981 -326.262 -1%

NOx 306.003 -2.982 -1%

PM 5.877 -48 -1%

Speeds 5 km/h higher CO2 40.723.981 -2.019.122 -5%

NOx 306.003 -12.192 -4%

PM 5.877 -296 -5%

In case the average velocity were to be 5 km/h higher than assumed in Table 4-8, the emissions

reduction resulting from speed limiter is expected to be higher, of approximately 4% to 5% of the

emissions of HCVs on motorways in the EU27.

4.5 Market impacts

4.5.1 Introduction

The market impacts that can be attributed to the Speed Limitation Directive refer to different areas:

shifts between vehicle categories, in particular from HCV to LCV;

transport operating costs;

vehicle design;

compliance costs, administrative costs, enforcement and fraud;

level playing field and transport demand..

4.5.2 Shifts between vehicle categories

As already explained, data collected from the survey are rather incomplete: only few countries i.e.

Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg and United

Kingdom provided data of vehicles differentiated per M and N categories for periods before and

after the Speed Limiters Directive implementation, which occurred in 2005 in almost all countries

analysed. The vast majority of respondents did not see evidence of a correlation between the

implementation of the Directive and the vehicles stock development, and the analysis carried out

confirms that there is no certain association between the two. Generally vehicles stock time series

did not alter their growth rate after the Directive implementation, while in the case of Latvia

heavier commercial and passenger vehicles growth trend was stronger compared to light vehicles

one (trends of available M and N vehicle stock are presented in Annex 9). It’s important to mention

that the evolution of vehicles fleet composition in Eastern European countries like Latvia,

Lithuania, Slovakia and Romania has been also influenced by the opening of new branches from

many Western European road transport companies not only for logistical reasons or lower labour

costs, but also for new vehicles purchase incentives (as emerged also during the interviews with the

operators).

The problem is that for all countries it is not possible to isolate the impact of the Speed Limitation

Directive from a number of other elements that have had an influence on the growth rates of

different categories of commercial vehicles. As also confirmed by the outcome of the survey and by


the stakeholders’ conference, the various factors that have played a role include: road charging

schemes, cargo weight, logistic patterns, cargo fragmentation, e-commerce deliveries, etc. not to

mention also the economic downturn.

Information collected through specific interviews with passenger/freight transport and logistics

operators in order to understand whether they were influenced by the Speed Limiters Directive

implementation in terms of vehicle choice confirm the difficulty to disentangle this specific impact

from the many other factors.

Eventually, it is relevant to mention that according to the majority of the government agencies

responding to the questionnaire, the share of LGVs in international freight transport is not

significant and therefore no shifts between vehicles categories have substantially influenced

international commercial road freight transport.

4.5.3 Transport operating costs

The benefit of the implementation of speed limitation devices from the transport operators’ point

of view is perceived essentially in terms of operating costs savings: fuel consumption can be more

easily predicted and also tires, breaks and other components are less eroded. Especially the more

recent installation of speed limitation devices on N2/M2 vehicles confirmed this positive and quite

immediate impact on vehicle’s operating costs and life cycle by the operators themselves.

No major impact was distinguished in relation to travel time increases as a consequence of the

Speed Limitation Directive implementation.

4.5.4 Vehicle design

The impact on vehicle design is intended here essentially as downsizing of engines’ power for

vehicle categories affected by the implementation of the Speed Limitation Directive.

According to the information collected such an impact has been negligible in comparison to the

relevance of technology development and innovation, starting from the introduction of turbo

chargers to more recent systems like Electronic Stability Control, adaptive cruise, pneumatic disc

brakes on all axles, electronically controlled breaking systems and retarders. In this sense, the

presence of speed limiters may have positively influenced a “right engine design” also for

improving the performances of some systems like automatic speed adaptation on hill and descend

road sections.

The downsizing or “rightsizing” of engines’ power is in any case dependent on vehicles’ usage

(especially the type of service and the cargo loaded) and strictly linked to optimal fuel consumption

performances.

Whereas for companies operating long distance regular coach services or coach tourism, availability

of new on-board technologies for adaptive cruising and speed monitoring are fundamental for

increasing safety and comfort of their passengers (such characteristics are also highly evaluated

during a new vehicle’s acquisition), road freight operators may be more oriented to purely fuel

saving advantages of new engines.

Heavy cargoes transported on the road still require high powered engines given that steep roads still

need to be driven at the maximum speed.


4.5.5 Compliance costs, administrative costs, enforcement and fraud

As for administrative and compliance costs (including equipment and retrofitting) encountered by

the Member States, few responses from governmental authorities have been provided (see section

3.4.1). These answers prove that no major problems have been encountered, as also confirmed by

interviews with transport and logistics operators.

According to the survey respondents, there was no evidence of significant levels of frauds and

illegal behaviours. Vehicle compliance is checked together with the periodic controls performed for

vehicles safety and according to the different Member States’ regulations.

Another conclusion that can be drawn by the survey among the governmental contacts90 is that no

differences were observed (or no data are available) in relation to the behaviour of small/medium

enterprises (SMEs) in comparison to large enterprises with respect to the Directive provisions: i.e.

in terms of frequency of illegal behaviours and/or frauds. In this respect, stakeholders’ answers are

also in line with those of the Member States representatives.

As final consideration it can be stated that the Speed Limitation Directive did not lead to distorted

competition among operators and that the available information seems to indicate that there is no

need for measures aimed at reducing administrative burden and compliance/enforcement costs.

4.5.6 Level playing field and transport demand

In addition to what is already mentioned in the previous paragraph, the implementation of the

Speed Limitation Directive, which helped the enforcement of posted speed limits on highways, had

a positive impact in terms of level playing field among transport companies of different EU

countries operating in the international transport sector. On the other hand, for those logistic

sectors where both HGVs and LGVs are in competition, the Speed Limitation Directive might also

be seen as part of the EU legislative initiatives that penalise HGVs, as mentioned in chapter 3.4.5.

No impacts on transport demand were detected.

4.6 Main findings

The ex-post evaluation of the Speed Limitation Directive focussed on the possible impacts with

respect to speed, road safety, emissions and the market.

The impacts of the Directive on actual vehicle speeds are difficult to estimate due to data

limitations. When comparing historical data on traffic speeds, no clear effect of the Directive on the

speed distribution could be found.

When considering the evolution of the accident risk of HCVs over time, there is no clear evidence

of the impact of the Directive on traffic safety. This is mainly due to three reasons. Firstly, there is

not a single year of implementation of the Directive, which makes that the possible effect is spread

over time. Secondly, together with the Directive many other regulations came into place which

either directly or indirectly impacted traffic safety. Finally, as data limitations with regard to vehicle-

kilometre per road type only allowed for analysing accidents rates for all road types together, the

90 The only exception is the Italian Ministry of Transport that, although stating that no direct evidence of different

behaviour between enterprises emerges, reports that some resistance to the retrofitting speed limiter scheme was noted

mainly from small enterprises using vehicles for their own account.


impacts of the speed limiters (mainly taking place on motorways) were not traceable in the overall

accident statistics.

However, what is relevant for the ex-post evaluation is not the speed distribution of 10 years ago,

but the speed distribution if no speed limiter would be in place today. Hence, based on real data,

more theoretical speed distributions were assumed, implying a small impact on speed of the speed

limiters. Using these speed distributions the impact on safety and emissions could be calculated.

Hence this second approach was chosen to analyse the possible effect on traffic safety. Given the

relationships between the distribution of speed and accidents and the impact of speed limiters on

the distribution of speed, the impact of speed limiters could be demonstrated. Using the more

theoretical speed distributions, the impact on speed was assessed and the impact on safety could be

calculated.

Overall, the Directive had a positive impact on traffic safety, leading to a reduction of 9% of fatal

accidents, 4% of serious injuries and overall a reduction of 3% for all injury accidents on

motorways with HCVs involved. The reduction percentages for buses are higher with a reduction

of 13% of fatal accidents, 7% of seriously injured and overall a reduction of 4% for all injury

accidents on motorways. However, as the number of accidents with buses is small, the results

should be treated with care as they are more uncertain. The total reduction in the number of

fatalities due to the Directive is estimated at about 50.

Furthermore, two uncertainties remain. Firstly, what would the speed distribution look like if there

were no speed limiters? If the speed would be higher than first assumed, the effect of the speed

limiter would be larger. If the speed deviation would be larger than assumed, the effect of the speed

limiter would also increase as well. The extent of the impact on safety is thus largely depending on

the hypotheses taken regarding speed distribution. Secondly, the speed-accident relationships used

are estimated for a mix of traffic, consisting mainly of cars. Given the weight and the dimensions of

the HCV, the relationship – especially with respect to the consequences of an accident – could be

stronger. However, no research has been done to allow for specific HCV speed – accident

relationships. Unfortunately, data is lacking to distinguish the road safety impacts of introducing

speed limitation devices in vehicle categories N2 and M2.

With respect to the effect on emissions, by comparing speed profiles, it can be concluded that the

introduction of speed limiters lowers emissions of CO2, NOx and PM with 1% for HGVs and with

2% for buses for motorways with high posted speed limits. For motorways with low posted speed

limits the effect on emissions is zero. The higher the average speed is before the introduction of the

speed limiter and the speed limiters speed, the higher the reduction in emissions. Overall, for the

EU as a whole it is estimated that the introduction of speed limiters decreased emissions with 1%.

With respect to the market impacts the focus lies on the possible impacts of a shift between HCVs



countries did see this shift, but this could also be caused by other regulations (e.g. drinking and rest

times, tachograph,…) and to other influences (supply chain and distribution patterns, internet

shopping) – rather than by the Speed Limitation Directive. Fraud was not seen as a problem by the

interviewees, but did come up as a problem in the literature from outside the EU.


5 Ex-ante evaluation for HCVs

5.1 Introduction

In this chapter the results are presented of the evaluation of various options for amending the

current Speed Limitation Directive with respect to HCVs. This includes both scenarios in which

the maximum speeds that apply to HCVs are decreased/increased and scenarios in which the

Intelligent Speed Adaptation/Assistance (ISA) systems become mandatory. Section 3.3 already gave

a brief description of various types of ISA systems.

This chapter starts with the scenario description in section 5.2. Next the results of the ex-ante

evaluation are presented: in section 5.3 the impacts on speed, in section 5.4 on traffic safety, in

section 5.5 on emissions and in section 5.6 the market impacts. Section 5.7 provides a synthesis of

the evaluation. The various impacts have been quantified by applying the methodology described in

chapter 2.

5.2 Scenario definition

Four scenarios were evaluated. In the first two scenarios only the maximum speeds as set by the

speed limiter are changed compared to the current situation, while in the last two scenarios two

different ISA systems are introduced.

5.2.1 Speed limiter scenarios

With respect to maximum speeds set by the speed limiter the following two scenarios are evaluated:

Scenario 1 (HCV1): A speed decrease for the N2/N3 vehicles from 90 km/h to 80 km/h

maximum speed and a speed decrease from 100 km/h to 90 km/h for M2/M3 vehicles.

Scenario 2 (HCV2): A speed increase to 100 km/h for the N2/N3 vehicles and keeping the

speed fixed for M2/M3 vehicles.

The reasoning behind these scenarios is as follows. One scenario with an increase of the speed and

one with a decrease of the speed has been chosen to assess a broad range of scenarios. The levels of

80 km/h for N2/N3 is a reasonable assumption as many countries have a maximum speed on

motorways set for this type of vehicles at 80 km/h. A lower maximum speed is less likely to be

possible as in many Member States, for example Belgium, the minimum speed on motorways is 70

km/h. An increase of the maximum speed for HGVs to 100 km/h decreases the differences in

vehicle speed between the various vehicle types. Furthermore a speed of 100 km/h would be

technically feasible for the HCV’s.

The different EU27 countries however have different maximum speeds on their motorways and

rural roads. Important for the analysis of these scenarios is the assumption on what will happen

given the national maximum speeds. These national posted speed limits remain unchanged

throughout the analysis.

Scenarios which differentiate speed limits between M2 and M3 and/or between N2 and N3

vehicles were not withheld as there is insufficient data for carrying out such an analysis. Therefore,

such scenarios, although potentially relevant from the policy perspective, have not been selected for

the evaluation.


5.2.2 ISA scenarios

For the scenario a time horizon for implementation of about 5 years is relevant. Hence only

technologies that could be applied within this period were considered. This means that the systems

scoring an o in Section 2.5 (the dynamic speed limitation information) are not relevant for the

scenarios. Furthermore, it should also be taken into account that digital road maps are an important

condition for variable ISA systems to function and the maps would require regular updating. This

means that a fixed system is more likely to be feasible than a variable system. Liability of the driver

is also an issue, given that he should keep control over his vehicle. In this context it is not clear

whether active ISA systems could be implemented as alternative to speed limiters or whether only

supportive systems are a possible alternative. This means that the intervening/mandatory systems

fall out as an option.

Given these requirements two alternative ISA systems for HGVs are evaluated in this study. One of

these systems is also combined with a change in the maximum speed.

Scenario 3 (HCV3): “Advisory/informing” or “warning” driver feedback with variable

posted speed limit information and no changes in current maximum speeds.

Scenario 4 (HCV4): “Voluntary” driver feedback with fixed posted speed limit

information and a decrease in the maximum speed to 80 km/h for N2/N3 and to 90

km/h for M2/M3.

For the ISA scenario 3, the technology is currently already being offered by several car

manufacturers in the sense that visual or acoustic signals are being fed back to the driver. Haptic

feedback (vibration) is currently not yet being offered as an option. However, it does not

necessarily require significant adaptations to the principle. As such, the technology is already

introduced to a sufficiently high level to be transposed on a heavy goods vehicles fleet. The

informative nature of the system implies that no invasive actions are taken by the ISA system. The

driver remains fully responsible for the eventual speed choice. This also means that from a liability

perspective, it would be possible to combine this system with variable posted speed limit

information. By keeping the speeds as they are today, this scenario allows to assess the pure effects

of implementing this type of ISA for HCVs.

Also the technology needed for ISA scenario 4 is available. This system has been the subject of

some research and field tests. It is currently not being offered as an option by vehicle

manufacturers, but could be ready for the market within 5 years. Databases with maximum speed

information are up to a certain extent already available at both private and public level. Driver

acceptance can sometimes be a problem for this type of system since a more explicit invasion takes

place in relation to driver input (speed pedal pressure). As the system is more intrusive, from a

liability perspective this system should be combined with fixed maximum speed information as this

type of information is most reliable. Many EU Member States already have a maximum speed in

place for HCVs which is lower than the current speed limiter. By combining a voluntary ISA

system with a lower maximum speed we expect that this scenario will have the highest safety impact

and can serve as a comparison for the other three scenarios.

It should be noted that where regular speed limiters particularly have an impact on motorways, ISA

systems have also impacts on rural roads and urban roads. These are the road types with relatively

high accidents rates, compared to motorways. Therefore, ISA systems can be regarded as

complementary to the speed limiters. This is an important reason why scenarios 3 and 4 have ISA

systems on top of regular speed limiters.


5.2.3 Overview of all four scenarios

We can summarize the four scenarios for HCVs as follows.

Table 5-1: Summary of the scenarios for the ex-ante analysis for HCVs

Speed limiter HGVs Speed limiter buses ISA system

Reference 90 km/h 100 km/h no

HCV1 80 km/h 90 km/h no

HCV2 100 km/h 100 km/h no

HCV3 90 km/h 100 km/h Advisory/open – variable maximum speed information

HCV4 80 km/h 90 km/h Voluntary – fixed maximum speed information

5.3 Impacts on speed

For the impacts on speed, the focus lies on the impact of scenario 1 – with a reduction in speed and

scenario 2 – with an increase in the speeds. As the speed set in the speed limiters remain the same,

and speed limiters are still in place in scenario 3, no changes in speed or the distribution for

motorways are expected in this scenario. In scenario 4, for motorways and rural roads the effects

on speed and its distribution will be the same as in scenario 1. In this section the influence of ISA

on urban and rural speeds is not analysed, as the impacts on safety and emissions for this type of

roads will follow directly from the literature on ISA.

The tables below show the average speed and standard deviation for HCVs for the reference case,

scenario 1 and scenario 2. This is used as an input for estimating the safety and emission impacts.

High and low refer Member States with relatively high or low posted speed limits, for more details

see section 2.6.7.

Table 5-2: Average speed and standard deviation for HCVs in the different scenarios, motorways

Before After

Member

State type

Scenario Vehicle

Posted

speed limit

Speed

limiter

Average

speed

Speed

deviation

Speed

limiter

Average

speed

Speed

deviation

Change in

average speed

Low HCV 1 HGV 80 90 84 5 80 79 2 -6%

Low HCV 2 HGV 80 90 84 5 100 85 6 1%

High HCV 1 HGV 90 90 87 3 80 79 1 -9%

High HCV 2 HGV 90 90 87 3 100 90 6 3%

Low HCV 1 Bus 90 100 94 5 90 89 2 -6%

Low HCV 2 Bus 90 100 94 5 100 94 5 0%

High HCV 1 Bus 100 100 97 3 90 89 1 -8%

High HCV 2 Bus 100 100 97 3 100 97 3 0%


For the rural roads similar assumptions are made. Given the speed limits on rural roads, the main

impact on speeds is for scenario 1 and 4 in which the speed set in the speed limiter is decreased.

The results are shown in Table 5-3.


Table 5-3: Average speed and standard deviation for HCVs for the different scenarios, rural roads

Before After

Member

State type

Scenario Vehicle

Posted

speed limit

Speed limiter

Average speed

Speed deviation

Speed limiter

Average speed

Speed deviation

Change

in average

speed

Low HCV 1 HGV 80 90 70 10 80 69 9 -1%

Low HCV 2 HGV 80 90 70 10 100 70 10 0%

High HCV 1 HGV 90 90 79 9 80 76 6 -4%

High HCV 2 HGV 90 90 79 9 100 80 10 1%

Low HCV 1 Bus 80 100 70 10 90 70 10 0%

Low HCV 2 Bus 80 100 70 10 100 70 10 0%

High HCV 1 Bus 90 100 80 10 90 79 9 -1%

High HCV 2 Bus 90 100 80 10 100 80 10 0%


So, the speed changes in scenario 1 are much higher than in scenario 2, with the highest impacts in Member

States with high posted speed limits.


This section presents the results of the ex-ante evaluation of impacts on road safety for HCVs.

5.4.1 Safety impacts at Member State level

The application of speed limiters leads to a decrease in average speed for the involved vehicles. This

was simulated by the model and has an effect on accidents.

In this section the relative effects on speed and accident rates for fatal accidents, serious injury

accidents and all injury accidents are shown. The effects are based on the decrease of the average

speed due to the speed limiters and the formulas of Nilsson (1982) and the updated exponents by

Elvik (2009). The effect differs for the accident severity: the effect of a decrease in speed on more

severe accidents is larger. This is because the exponent of the power functions is higher for more

severe accidents (see 2.7.4).

There is a large difference in the posted maximum speeds for HGVs or buses in the EU Member

States. This is important because the effect of the speed limiter will be different when the

maximum speed on the roads is high or low. This is because the decrease in speed due to the speed

limiter is much higher on a road with a maximum speed of 130 km/h than on a road with a

maximum speed of 100 km/h. Similarly, the relative effects of speed limiters on motorways will be

larger than on rural roads.

Table 5-4 and Table 5-5 show the change in average speed and the change in accident rates for the

four scenarios that were defined, for HGVs in Member States with high and low91 maximum

speeds. The effects on road safety are based on the change in average speeds, which is presented

first. The accident reduction percentages in these tables are the result of the model calculations

using the power functions, but not yet applied to the accident rates in the Member States. Scenario

91 The low posted speed limit is 80 km/h for HGVs and 90 km/h for buses on motorways, which means that the posted

speed limit is was lower than the speed limiter. The high posted speed limit is 90 km/h for HGVs and 100 km/h for

buses on motorways. For rural roads this is respectively 80 km/h (low) and 90 km/h (high) for HCVs.


4 consists of both the voluntary ISA system and the speed limiter for HCVs as in scenario 1. In the

calculations for this scenario, effects of both measures were calculated and the dominant effect was

applied (see 2.7.5).

Table 5-4: Impacts of different scenarios for HGVs on accident rates for Member States with low

maximum speeds (based on Elvik, 2009)92

Scenario

Road

HCV1 Speed limiter for

HGVs to 80 km/h and for buses to 90

km/h

HCV2 No change in speed

limiter for buses and speed limiter

for HGVs to 100 km/h


limiter and advisory ISA for all HCVs

HCV4 Speed limiters as in

HCV1 and voluntary ISA for

all HCVs

motorway Average speed -6% +1% 0% -6%

Fatal accidents -22% +3% 0% -22%

Serious injury accidents -13% +2% 0% -13%

All injury accidents -8% +1% 0% -8%

rural Average speed -1% 0%

Fatal accidents -4% 0% -9% -25%

Serious injury accidents -2% 0% -4% -19%

All injury accidents -2% 0% -2% -11%

urban Average speed 0% 0%

Fatal accidents 0% 0% -9% -25%

Serious injury accidents 0% 0% -4% -19%

All injury accidents 0% 0% -2% -11%

Note that for scenario HCV3 and HCV4 on motorways the effects of the ISA system were

corrected for the already present speed limiter. Both in HCV3 and HCV4, the ISA has no

significant additional safety impact on motorways as the speeds are already limited and the ISA will

not intervene. The safety impact in HCV4 is from the lower maximum speed of the speed limiters

(as in HCV1).

For rural and urban roads the safety impacts in HCV3 and HCV4 are from the ISA. The

differences in the safety impacts are because of the different types of ISA.

For HCV3 the impact on average speed on motorways is 0%, because no additional effect of

advisory ISA is expected on motorways. For HCV4 the impact of ISA on average speed is also 0%

but the lower maximum speed of the speed limiter causes a -6% average speed effect. For other

roads no average speed impacts are available, because no calculations on the speed were performed.

The road safety effects are based on Carsten et al. (2008).

92 Note that for HCV3 and HCV4, the impacts on motorways are from the speed limiters, while the impacts on the other

roads are from the ISA.


Table 5-5: Impacts of different scenarios for HGVs on accident rates for Member States with high

maximum speeds (based on Elvik, 2009) 93

Scenario

Road


HGVs to 80 km/h and for buses to 90

km/h


limiter for buses and speed limiter

for HGVs to 100 km/h


limiter and advisory ISA for all HCVs

HCV4 Speed limiters as in

HCV1 and voluntary ISA for

all HCVs


Fatal accidents -30% +11% 0% -30%

Serious injury accidents -19% +6% 0% -19%

All injury accidents -12% +4% 0% -12%

rural Average speed -4% +1%

Fatal accidents -15% +4% -9% -25%

Serious injury accidents -9% +2% -4% -19%

All injury accidents -6% +1% -2% -11%





In scenario1, the speed limiter of 80 km/h for HGVs has a large effect on motorways, both in

Member States with high and low maximum speeds. For rural roads the speed limiter has a large

effect for roads with a higher maximum speed. The change in average speeds in scenario 1 is

between -6% and -9% on motorways and between -1% and -4% on rural roads according to this

simulation. The increase in average speed for scenario 2 is between 1% and 3% on motorways.

An increase of the maximum speed for HGVs as in scenario 2 leads to an increase of accidents,

mainly on motorways with high maximum speeds. The effect is almost a reverse of the results of

the ex-post simulation.

The speed limiters have no effect on urban roads, as no vehicles drive faster than the maximum

speed of the speed limiter. Compared to the speed limiters, both ISA systems have considerable

road safety effects on rural and urban roads.

Literature provides either a distinction of ISA effects according to road type or accident severity.

For this study we choose to use a distinction to accident severity and the effects on different road

types are therefore the same. The results for voluntary ISA on motorways are comparable with

scenario 1, with a significant reduction in fatal accidents. Advisory ISA leads to a smaller effect on

motorways compared to the speed limiter, but it has a larger effect on rural roads and urban roads.

Compared with voluntary ISA the effects are always smaller

It should be noted that the effects of the ISA systems are based on literature and gives a rough

estimate, more an indication. The effect of voluntary ISA on motorways is comparable to the speed

limiters on motorways The effect of advisory ISA is comparable with speed limiters on rural roads.


roads are from the ISA.


The same approach was taken for buses. Table 5-6 and Table 5-7 show the impact on road safety of

the scenarios for buses for Member States with low and high maximum speeds.

Table 5-6: Impacts of different scenarios for buses on accident rates for Member States with low


Scenario

Road

HCV1

Speed limiter for HGVs to 80 km/h

and for buses to 90 km/h

HCV2

No change in speed limiter for buses

and speed limiter for HGVs to 100

km/h

HCV3

No change in speed limiter and advisory

ISA for all HCVs

HCV4

Speed limiters as in HCV1 and

voluntary ISA for all HCVs

motorway Average speed -6% 0% 0% -6%

Fatal accidents -20% 0% 0% -20%

Serious injury accidents -12% 0% 0% -12%

All injury accidents -8% 0% 0% -8%









Table 5-7: Impacts of different scenarios for buses on accident rates for Member States with high


Scenario

Road

HCV1

Speed limiter for HGVs to 80 km/h

and for buses to 90 km/h

HCV2

No change in speed limiter for buses

and speed limiter for HGVs to 100

km/h

HCV3

No change in speed limiter and advisory

ISA for all HCVs

HCV4




Fatal accidents -27% 0% 0% -27%

Serious injury accidents -17% 0% 0% -17%

All injury accidents -11% 0% 0% -11%










roads are from the ISA. 95 See previous footnote.


Results are similar for buses than for HGVs. For buses the impact of the speed limiter of 90 km/h

on speed and accidents is slightly smaller than for HGVs, but still significant. On rural roads the

effect is small.

5.4.2 Safety impacts at EU level

For every Member State the effect of the implementation of speed limiters is different, due to the

maximum speed in the Member States. The analysis was carried out for every Member State and

the reduction percentages were applied to the accident data with HGVs or buses involved per

Member State. The aggregated results at the EU level are shown in Table 5-8, which shows the

accident reduction rate for the four scenarios for HCVs, on motorways, rural roads, urban roads

and aggregated to all roads for an average year based on accident rates in the period 2008-2011.

Table 5-8: Road safety effect on the number of accidents at EU level

Scenario

Accidents

HCV1 Speed limiter

for HGVs to 80 km/h and for

buses to 90 km/h

HCV2 No change in

speed limiter for buses and speed

limiter for HGVs to 100

km/h

HCV3 No change in

speed limiter and advisory

ISA for all HCVs

HCV4 Speed limiters

as in HCV1 and voluntary ISA

for all HCVs

motorway Fatal accidents 545 -137 (-25%) +38 (+7%) 0 ( 0%) -137 (-25%)

Serious injury accidents 2,256 -338 (-15%) +80 (+4%) 0 (0%) -338 (-15%)

All injury accidents 10,203 -1,011 (-10%) +253 (2%) 0 (0%) -1,011 (-10%)

rural Fatal accidents 2,293 -93 (-4%) +13 (+1%) -200 (-9%) -570 (-25%)

Serious injury accidents 4,777 -124 (-3%) +16 (0%) -198 (-4%) -888 (-19%)

All injury accidents 20,087 -356 (-2%) +44 (0%) -486 (-2%) -2,297 (-11%)

urban Fatal accidents 1,439 0 (0%) 0 (0%) -126 (-9%) -358 (-25%)

Serious injury accidents 6,441 0 (0%) 0 (0%) -267 (-4%) +1,198 (-19%)

All injury accidents 40,001 0 (0%) 0 (0%) -968 (-2%) -4,574 (-11%)

all roads Fatal accidents 4,277 -230 (-5%) +51 (+1%) -326 (-8%) -1,065 (-25%)

Serious injury accidents 13,473 -462 (-3%) +95 (+1%) -464 (-3%) -2,424 (-18%)

All injury accidents 70,290 -1,368 (-2%) +297 (+0%) -1,454 (-2%) -7,881 (-11%)

For the HCV scenarios the differentiation between road types is clear. The speed limiter (scenario 1

and 2) only has an effect on motorways and rural roads. The relative effect on motorways is the

largest. However, the number of accidents is larger on rural roads compared to motorways.

Therefore the absolute effect of the speed limiters relatively high on rural roads, but still smaller

than on motorways.

Compared to the ex-post evaluation, the effect of setting the maximum speed for the speed limiter

for HGVs to 100 km/h in scenario 2 has almost the same effect, although now reversed.

The ISA scenarios show an effect on rural roads and urban roads. On motorways, the effect of

adding ISA systems to speed limiters is assumed to be very small. This is because the speed is

already limited by the speed limiter on motorways.

The effect of advisory ISA and voluntary ISA on rural roads and urban roads is substantial,

especially for voluntary ISA. This is because the number of accidents on rural and urban roads is

very high, and therefore absolute accident reduction is relatively large on those road types.


In the ISA scenarios the vehicles are still equipped with a speed limiter. For scenario 3 the set speed

does not change and the speed limiter has no additional effect. The maximum speed set by the

speed limiter changes in scenario 4 and voluntary ISA is also applied. Here the dominant effect was

applied (see for an explanation section 2.7.5), which means that the measure that has the largest

effect was used in the calculations. For rural and urban roads ISA is dominant, but for motorways

the effect of the speed limiter was applied.

Figure 5-1, Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3 show the overall road safety effect for all scenarios on all road

types on fatal accidents. Figure 5-1 shows the relative reduction of fatal accidents on all roads.

Here the distinction in effects per road type is shown. ISA systems especially have a large effect on

rural and urban roads. The effect on motorways is significant in scenario 1 and 4.

Figure 5-1: Road safety effect on fatal accidents – HCV scenarios

Figure 5-2 shows the road safety effect on severe injury accidents for the four HCV scenarios, also

relative to the number of accidents on all roads. The difference between scenario 1 and 3 is smaller

than for fatalities.

Figure 5-2: Road safety effect on severe injury accidents – HCV scenarios

Figure 5-3 shows the road safety effect on all injury accidents for the HCV scenarios, relative to the

accidents on all roads. The effect of a reduced maximum speed for the speed limiters of HCVs, as

in scenario 1, has an overall effect which is of the same order of magnitude as ISA Advisory, but

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

urban

rural

motorway

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

urban

rural

motorway


still much smaller than the Voluntary ISA. Effects are however obtained on different types of

roads.

Figure 5-3: Road safety effect on all injury accidents – HCV scenarios

5.4.3 Safety impacts of changes in speed dispersion

A further decrease of the speed limiters has a positive effect on road safety, according to the

calculations with the Nilsson formulas. However, a further decrease in maximum speed for HGVs

and buses would also mean that the speed differences between heavy vehicles and other vehicles

(cars and LCVs) become larger. This also has an effect on road safety.

The relationship between road safety and speed dispersion was also researched in this project.

Several studies have argued that high speed dispersion on the road leads to an increased number of

accidents. This effect has been quantified by Taylor (2000) and Kloeden (2001). Because there are

many limitations to applying these formulas, the quantitative results are not presented. Only the

effects for the first two scenarios were calculated as the effects for the ISA scenarios are based on

literature. The results are presented in Table 5-9. A positive sign corresponds to an improvement of

the road safety (on top of, or contrary to the impacts from reductions in average speeds that were

estimated in the previous two sections).

Table 5-9: Effect of the change in speed dispersion in HCV scenarios 1 and 2

Scenario

Road


HGVs to 80 km/h and for buses to 90 km/h


limiter for buses and speed limiter for HGVs

to 100 km/h

motorway Taylor -- +

Kloeden -- ++

rural Taylor + +/-

Kloeden +/- +/-

Both the calculations for Taylor and those for Kloeden show that a further decrease of the speeds

of HCVs has a negative impact on road safety for motorways. According to the study of SWOV

(1991) this negative effect might be just as large as the positive effect on road safety of lower

average speeds. In scenario 2 the speed limiter for HGVs and buses is homogenised, both are at

100 km/h. This has a positive effect on road safety, because speed differences between vehicles

become smaller.

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

urban

rural

motorway


For rural roads, only the HCVs that drive much faster than the average speed on the road reduce

their speeds due to the speed limiters. Therefore speed differences will decrease when the speed

limiter is applied. Because the decrease in speed is only small and applies to a small share of the

vehicles, this effect is small. An increase of the maximum speed for HCVs hardly leads to an

increase of speed differences.

5.4.4 Conclusion on safety impacts

The calculations with the simulation model show that a further decrease in the maximum speed for

the speed limiter will reduce the average speeds of HCVs by 6% to 9%. This leads to a significant

effect on road safety, which was quantified using the power functions of Nilsson (1982) and Elvik

(2009). For the ISA scenarios a rough estimation based on literature was given, to be compared to

the results of the calculations. This showed that ISA systems especially have a larger effect on rural

and urban roads. Scenario 4 combines the speed limiter for HCVs with a voluntary ISA and has the

largest effect. The speed limiters have a dominant effect on motorways and reduce the number of

fatal accidents by about 25%. The voluntary ISA would lead to about the same reduction on rural

and urban roads. The effect of the change in speed dispersion is opposite to that of the reduced

average speed in scenario 1 on motorways, and will certainly reduce the effect of the speed limiter.

For scenario 2 this is the other way around.

Overall, scenario 4 with a voluntary ISA on top of the existing speed limiters for all HCVs shows

the highest improvement in traffic safety, with a 25% reduction in fatal accidents with HCVs

involved. This corresponds to a reduction of about 150 fatal accidents annually.


5.5.1 Emission impacts at Member State level

Also for emissions the effects were estimated for the different scenarios for all Member States. At

Member State level, here we present the results for an ‘average’ Member State with low and high

posted speed limits, based on the speed limits per Member State. In the next section, these numbers

are applied per Member State to estimate the impacts on emissions at EU level.

Table 5-10 and Table 5-11 show the effect of the different scenarios for HGVs on CO2, NOx and

PM emissions for Member States with low and high posted speed limits. The tables show the

change in average speed96 and the change in level of emissions for the four scenarios that were

defined, for motorways and rural roads. Impacts on urban roads are expected to be negligible.

96 The changes in speed shown here refer to changes in the average speed of the speed profile of an average vehicle.

These can be different from the changes in average speeds shown in the section on the safety impacts, because the latter

refer to changes in the average speed of the speed distribution (of all vehicles).


Table 5-10: Effect of different scenarios for HGVs on CO2, NOx and PM emissions for Member States with

low posted speed limits

Scenario

Road


HGVs to 80 km/h and for

buses to 90 km/h

HCV2 No change in


limiter for HGVs to 100 km/h

HCV3 No change in

speed limiter and advisory ISA for

all HCVs

HCV4 Speed limiters as

in HCV1 and voluntary ISA for

all HCVs


CO2 -9% +0% 0% -9%

NOx -7% -0% 0% -7%

PM -9% +0% 0% -9%

rural Average speed -4% 0% 0% -4%

CO2 -6% 0% 0% -6%

NOx -4% 0% 0% -4%

PM -6% 0% 0% -6%

Table 5-11: Effect of different scenarios for HGVs on CO2, NOx and PM emissions for Member States with

high posted speed limits

Scenario

Road

HCV1

Speed limiter for HGVs to 80

km/h and for buses to 90 km/h

HCV2

No change in speed limiter for

buses and speed limiter for HGVs

to 100 km/h

HCV3

No change in speed limiter and

advisory ISA for all HCVs

HCV4




CO2 -12% +1% 0% -12%

NOx -10% +0% 0% -10%

PM -12% +1% 0% -12%

rural Average speed -8% +6% 0% -8%

CO2 -10% +6% 0% -10%

NOx -8% +2% 0% -8%

PM -10% +6% 0% -10%

In case the speed limiter speed of the currently implemented speed limiters are to be decreased by

10 km/h to 80 km/h for HGVs and 90 km/h for buses (scenario 1), emissions are expected to

decrease even further, since emissions of the HGVs and buses are lowest in the range of 50 – 80

km/h.

In scenario 2 the emissions are hardly affected. This is the result of the maximum velocity without a

speed limiter is not or only slightly higher than the maximum velocity with a speed limiter, as was

concluded in the ex-post evaluation. In other words, the velocity is hardly affected by the speed

limiter. Only on motorways, emissions slightly increase as a result of a higher speed limitation.

As stated in section 2.5.3, ISA can have a positive effect on vehicle emissions. The biggest effect is

achieved in case of a mandatory system while driving on motorways, but this is not included in the

scenarios. Advisory ISA has no effect on emissions. The effect of ISA on rural roads is close to

zero. For scenario 4 the additional effect of ISA is assumed to be very small for these vehicles, due

to the dominant speed limiter effect.


The same approach is followed for buses. Table 5-12 and Table 5-13 show the effect of different

scenarios for buses on CO2, NOx and PM emissions for Member States with low and high posted

speed limits.

Table 5-12: Effect of different scenarios for buses on CO2, NOx and PM emissions for Member States with


Scenario

Road



buses to 90 km/h

HCV2 No change in



HCV3 No change in


all HCVs



all HCVs


CO2 -3% 0% 0% -3%

NOx -2% 0% 0% -2%

PM -3% 0% 0% -3%

rural Average speed 0% 0% 0% 0%

CO2 0% 0% 0% 0%

NOx 0% 0% 0% 0%

PM 0% 0% 0% 0%

Table 5-13: Effect of different scenarios for buses on CO2, NOx and PM emissions for Member States with


Scenario

Road



buses to 90 km/h

HCV2 No change in



HCV3 No change in


all HCVs



all HCVs

Motorway Average speed -9% 0% 0% -9%

CO2 -7% 0% 0% -7%

NOx -5% 0% 0% -5%

PM -7% 0% 0% -7%

Rural Average speed -5% 0% 0% -5%

CO2 -4% 0% 0% -4%

NOx -3% 0% 0% -3%

PM -4% 0% 0% -4%

For buses the effects in scenarios 1 and 4 are comparable with the effects for HGVs, only relatively

smaller. In scenario 2 the effects for buses are null.

Speed profiles on rural roads, typically differ from those on highways in two ways, i.e.

More dynamics; more acceleration and deceleration e.g. due to crossings and fewer lanes.

High dynamics generally result in higher emissions (in case of all other things being equal).

Lower average velocities, due to typically lower posted speed limits. All other things being

equal, the lower average velocity results in lower emissions (as long as it does decrease

below approximately 70 km/h).

As can be seen in Table 5-10, Table 5-11, Table 5-12 and Table 5-13, the emission reduction

resulting from lowering maximum speed limiter velocities are generally lower on rural roads than on


motorways. This is because speed limiters are assumed only to have effect on rural road vehicle

velocities (average velocity and driving dynamics) if the posted speed limit is relatively high while

the maximum velocity due to the speed limiter is set relatively low.

5.5.2 Emission impacts at EU level

The emissions at Member State level were aggregated at EU level (see Table 5-14).

Table 5-14: Ex-ante emission reduction by HGVs and buses on motorways and rural roads in EU27

(year: 2010)

Scenario

Emissions (tonnes)

HCV1

Speed limiter for HGVs to 80

km/h and for buses to 90

km/h

HCV2

No change in speed limiter for

buses and speed limiter for

HGVs to 100 km/h

HCV3

No change in speed limiter

and advisory ISA for all

HCVs

HCV4



motorway CO2 40,723,981 -3,666,281 (-9%) +126,592 (+0%) 0 (0%) -3,666,281 (-9%)

NOx 306,003 -22,288 (-7%) +294 (+0%) 0 (0%) -22,288 (-7%)

PM 5,877 -529 (-9%) +19 (+0%) 0 (0%) -529 (-9%)

rural CO2 111,218,953 -5,062,249 (-5%) +558,221 (+1%) 0 (0%) -5,062,249 (-5%)

NOx 923,736 -30,852 (-3%) +1,791 (+0%) 0 (0%) -30,852 (-3%)

PM 18,227 -854 (-5%) +109 (+1%) 0 (0%) -854 (-5%)

all non-urban roads CO2 151,942,934 -8,728,529 (-6%) +684,813 (+0%) 0 (0%) -8,728,529 (-6%)

NOx 1,229,739 -53,140 (-4%) +2,086 (+0%) 0 (0%) -53,140 (-4%)

PM 24,104 -1,383 (-6%) +128 (+1%) 0 (0%) -1,383 (-6%)

Given the emission reductions as shown at Member State level, the overall emission reductions of

CO2, NOx and PM are approximately 4% to 6% of the emissions by HCVs on motorways and rural

roads in the EU27 in scenario 1 and close to 0% in scenario 2.

Figure 5-4 shows that the CO2 emission reductions on rural roads are slightly higher, when

expressed in terms of reduction of the total emissions. The effects in scenario 4 are exactly the

same as in scenario 1, as the effect of speed limiters is much higher than the ISA effects. The effect

of increasing the speed limiter speed is very small.


Figure 5-4: Emission effects for CO2 emissions – HCV scenarios

The emission effects for NOx and PM at EU level are also higher for rural roads, as can be seen in

Figure 5-5. The effects in scenario 2 are very small, especially for NOx.

Figure 5-5: Emission effects for NOx and PM emissions – HCV scenarios 1 and 2

-15%

-13%

-11%

-9%

-7%

-5%

-3%

-1%

1%1: Speed

limiter 80/90

2: Speed

limiter 100

3: ISA

Advisory

4: ISA

Voluntary

+ Speed

limiter 80/90

rural

motorway

-15%

-13%

-11%

-9%

-7%

-5%

-3%

-1%

1%1: Speed

limiter 80/90

2: Speed

limiter 100

1: Speed

limiter 80/90

2: Speed

limiter 100

NOx PM

rural

motorway


5.6 Market impacts

Market impacts of a possible speed limits reduction or increase for HGVs emerge from the

feedbacks provided by governmental contacts and stakeholders in the survey as well as from the

direct interviews with road transport operators. Main considerations are reported below with

respect to the two different scenarios and referring to:

shifts between vehicle categories, in particular from HCVs to LCVs;


vehicle design;


level playing field and transport demand.

5.6.1 Scenario 1: speed decrease for HCVs

Scenario 1, which foresees speed limits reduction for both N2/N3 vehicles (from 90 km/h to 80

km/h) and M2/M3 vehicles (from 100 km/h to 90 km/h), is the scenario that encountered less

favour among the survey respondents. As reported in section 3.7, the large majority of both

Member States government representatives and stakeholders opposed the suggestion to further

decrease speed limits for HCVs.

Shifts between vehicle categories

A major market impact that can be considered for Scenario 1 is the further differentiation of speed

among LGVs and HGVs that may be a likely reason in road freight transport for a shift toward less

restricted vehicles (i.e. from N2 to N1) also taking into account the current market tendency

towards higher fragmentation of flows due to logistical reasons (e.g. less stocks and just in time) or

to lower cargo loads mainly dependent on the economic downturn.

Transport operating costs

It is important to underline that the current economic crisis is also imposing to the operators a

general reorganization of the logistic chain (for freight transport) or the service network (for

commercial passenger transport) with a reduction in the number of logistics platforms, depots,

interchange nodes and stops, and a consequent extension of the served area per vehicle. A further

speed reduction may have therefore effects not only on vehicle’s routing and schedule (for

increased travel times) and on the number of vehicles needed, but also on the physical nodes.

According to some interviews with both road passenger and freight operators, a further reduction

of speed limits for HGV might have a negative impact on safety, since drivers would be more

exposed to fatigue and risk of sleepiness especially during long trips on motorways. Conversely,

Bundesverband Güterverkehr Logistik und Entsorgung (BGL) states that such measure is already

applied by a few companies and it has a positive influence due to less stress for drivers.

Vehicle design

The impact on vehicle design in terms of downsizing of engines’ power for HCV M2/M3 and

N2/N3 categories in Scenario 1 would not be so relevant for the same reasons already mentioned

in section 4.5.4, i.e. it is only one of the various factors that influence the technology development

of commercial vehicles.



No significant impacts are foreseen with reference to compliance and administrative costs as well as

enforcement for Scenario 1.

Level playing field and transport demand

The differentiation of allowed speeds of HGVs and LGVs characterising Scenario 1 might have an

impact in terms of distorted competition among road transport operators, as it would further

penalise HGVs in favour of LGVs. (see also 3.4.5), though HGV and LGV are used in different

market sectors. On the other hand, the potential impact of the Scenario measures on the overall

transport demand and modal split is difficult to assess and quantify. Given the complexity of road

freight transport sector, the extent of such an impact would depend on many different factors, such

as the availability of alternatives, the specific characteristics and the length of the route, the logistic

chain involved, etc.

5.6.2 Scenario 2: speed increase for HGVs only

Road passenger and freight operators opinions in relation to Scenario 2 (speed increase to 100

km/h for N2/N3 vehicles only) are in line with what already expressed by stakeholders and

Member States government representatives, i.e. only a small minority would be in favour.

Some operators are in favour of a moderate increase of vehicle’s speed (e.g. +5/10 km/h), but only

under specific conditions, such as on three carriages motorways. Despite most respondents made

reference to a general increase of safety conditions, due to technology innovations on the vehicle

itself, the majority suggests to keep the current limits unchanged.


The reduction of speed difference among LGVs and HGVs envisaged in Scenario 2 is generally

considered not to be enough relevant to induce different choices in terms of vehicles fleet. As

already illustrated in section 3.4.5, there is a variety of reasons that might explain the different

development of the HGV and LGV fleets in Europe that goes from differences in the EC

regulation measures (considered to be largely in favour of LGV) to logistic trends toward cargos

fragmentation.


The increase of the allowed speed might have a positive effect (not quantifiable) in terms of

reduction of operating costs.

Vehicle design

As for Scenario 1, the impact on vehicle design in terms of downsizing of engines’ power for HCV

M2/M3 and N2/N3 categories would not be relevant.


No significant impacts are foreseen with reference to compliance and administrative costs as well as

enforcement also for this Scenario.



The impacts in terms of transport demand and competition distortion are not considered as

substantial for this Scenario. In terms of competition distortion among HGVs and LGVs, the

impact of this Scenario would be slightly positive, as it would reduce the speed gap between the two

types of vehicles (although this is obtained by rising GHHGV speed rather that reducing LGVs

one, as supported by the majority of the questionnaire respondents).

5.6.3 Scenario 3 and 4: ISA scenario

No specific market impacts are considered for Scenario 3, where speed limits are not changed and

the ISA systems considered are only of “informative” nature.

For Scenario 4, with lower speed limits (80 km/h for N2/N3 and to 90 km/h for M2/M3) and

“voluntary” driver feedback system, market impacts are similar to those of scenario 1, except for

the case of impacts on vehicles’ design. In this case, according to the vehicles’ usage, the presence

of the ISA systems, which are especially effective on rural and urban roads, might be an incentive

for “rightsizing” of engines’ power.

As already illustrated in section 3.6.3, the large majority of stakeholders and nearly the 1/3 of

governmental contacts agree on the introduction of ISA system should be introduced to all

commercial vehicles and most believe that “informative” or “voluntary” ISA systems should be

more suitable than “mandatory” ones. Justifications for the introduction of “informative” ISA

regard the fact these are more reliable to be implemented shortly and less expensive with respect to

more stringent type of ISA systems. On the contrary stringent ISA systems are justified by the

relevant benefits regarding road safety and commercial competition.

5.7 Main findings

Within this ex-ante evaluation the effects on road safety, emissions and the market have been

evaluated for four scenarios. In the first scenario the speed set by the speed limiter was decreased

for all HCVs: to 80 km/h for HGVs and 90 km/h for buses. In the second scenario, on the other

hand, the speed set was increased to 100 km/h for HGVs. The speed set for buses remains the

same at 100 km/h. The last two scenarios include an ISA system on top of the speed limiter device.

In the third scenario the speed set by the limiter remain as today and the system is complemented

with an advisory/informative ISA system. In the fourth scenarios the speed set by the limiter are

decreased to 80 km/h and 90 km/h respectively and coupled with a voluntary ISA system.

Overall the effect on road safety was largest for the fourth scenario in which a decrease in speed

limits was combined with a voluntary ISA system. In this scenario the number of fatal accidents

decreases with 25%, corresponding to about 150 fatal accidents a year. In this scenario, the number

of seriously injured decreases with 18% and overall there is a decrease of 11% in total accidents

with HCVs involved. In this scenario we see a reduction in accidents for all road types - motorways,

rural and urban - as ISA has an influence for all possible speed limits. Also in the third scenario the

ISA dominates the road safety effects and leads to a decrease with 8% in fatal accidents, 3% in

injuries and an overall reduction in accidents with 2%.

Decreasing the speed limit (scenario 1) leads to a decrease in fatal accidents of 5%, in injuries of 3%

and in all accidents of 2%. This effect is slightly smaller than the one of scenario 3 in which the

speed limits remain the same, but ISA is added. One of the reasons behind this is that ISA also

influences road safety on urban roads, while reducing the speed limiter does not.


Scenario 2 leads to a small increase in fatal accidents (+1%) and serious injuries (+1%). Overall the

number of accidents remains more or less stable. The effect for motorways is almost the reverse of

that in the ex-post evaluation, a 7% increase of fatal accidents compared to a 9% decrease in the ex-

post. In general, the effects are larger for HGVs than for buses and also larger for countries where

the speed limit is higher than the speed set by the limiter.

Decreasing the speed limit (scenario 1) also leads to a further decrease in emissions as emissions of

HGVs and buses are lowest in the range of 50 – 80 km/h. In scenario 2 the emissions are hardly

affected. Only on motorways, emissions slightly increase as a result of a higher speed limitation. For

ISA the biggest effect can be achieved in case of a mandatory system while driving on motorways,

but this is not included in the scenarios. Advisory ISA has no effect on emissions.

The effect of ISA systems on emissions on rural roads is close to zero. Scenario 3 brings no

reduction of emissions. For scenario 4 the additional effect of ISA is assumed to be very small for

these vehicles, due to the dominant speed limiter effect. For buses the effects in scenario 1 are

comparable with the HGV effects, only relatively smaller. In scenario 2 the effects for buses are

0%.

The overall emission reductions for the EU27 of CO2, NOx and PM are approximately 4% to 6%

of the emissions by HCVs on motorways and rural roads in the EU27 in scenario 1 (corresponding

to a reduction of about 9 Mtonnes of CO2) and 0% in scenario 2 and 3. The results for scenario 4

are the same as in scenario 1.

With respect to the market impacts, the effects are not clear. On the one hand there is anecdotal

evidence of companies driving at lower speeds than the speed limiter today. On the other hand, the

majority of the interviewees was against a reduction of speeds. Increasing the speed limit does not

get much support either. Overall, for scenario 1 it could be expected that further decreasing the

speed could lead to a shift towards the less restricted LCV. Stakeholders also mentioned possible

negative safety effects due to the longer driving times. Increasing the speed limiters speed would

probably have no effect on shifts between vehicle types but could possibly lead to a positive effect

with respect to the operating costs. No specific market impacts are considered for Scenario 3. For

Scenario 4, market impacts are similar to those of scenario 1.


6 Ex-ante evaluation for LCVs

6.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the results of the evaluation of various options for amending the current

Speed Limitation Directive by extending the scope to LCVs. This includes both scenarios with

regular speed limiters for LCVs and scenarios in which the Intelligent Speed Adaptation/Assistance

(ISA) systems become mandatory.

This chapter is structured in a similar way as chapter 5. However, before presenting the scenarios

and the results of the evaluation, a discussion on including M1 vehicles is included first, in section

6.2. Next, the scenario description is given in section 6.3. Then the results of the ex-ante evaluation

are presented: in section 6.4 the impacts on speed, in section 6.5 on traffic safety, in section 6.6 on

emissions and in section 6.7 the market impacts. Section 6.8 provides a synthesis of the evaluation.

The various impacts have been quantified by applying the methodology described in chapter 2.

6.2 Inclusion of M1 vehicles

In the ex-ante analysis of scenarios for LCVs, preferably also scenarios in which commercially used

M1 vehicles (mini buses) are subject to the obligation would be included. However, insufficient data

is available with respect to vehicle-kilometres and safety data to distinguish commercially used M1

vehicles from other M1 vehicles. Both accident rates and vehicle-kilometres are available for all M1

vehicles together, but not differentiated to commercially used M1 vehicles and other M1 vehicles.

Also, no other differentiations of accident and transport-volume data to relevant subcategories of

M1-vehicles are available (such as M1 vehicles with no more than seven seats and with more than

seven seats, including driver). Therefore, the scenarios defined and evaluated are limited to N1

vehicles.

In case the current Directive would be amended in such a way that also LCVs are covered, ways for

including certain types of M1 vehicles could be considered. This may be necessary in order to avoid

unintended shifts between N1 and M1 vehicles that could occur when only N1 would be included

in the legislation. At the other, it is expected to be difficult to legally distinguish commercially used

M1 vehicles from other M1 vehicles.

Several policy options for including some M1 vehicles could be considered, such as:

Limiting the obligation on N1 vehicles to vehicles with a vehicle mass above for example

2000 or 3500 kilogrammes.

Limiting the obligation to commercially used M1-vehciles with vehicles with 8 or 9 seats.

Combinations of those.

This type of options could not be evaluated quantitatively and further analysis of the various

options for distinguishing subcategories of LCVs are recommended as subject for further study.

6.3 Scenario definition

Four scenarios that describe different possible applications of speed limiters or ISA systems for

N1-vehicles are evaluated. The first two scenarios focus on the installation of a speed limiter in N1-

vehicles, while in the last two scenarios we introduce two different ISA systems.


6.3.1 Speed limiter scenarios

The following two speed limiter scenarios for LCVs are evaluated:

Scenario 1 (LCV1): A speed limiter for all N1-vehicles set at 110 km/h.

Scenario 2 (LCV2): A speed limiter for all N1-vehicles set at 100 km/h.

The reasoning behind these scenarios is as follows. A speed limit of 110 km/h seems feasible and

realistic. A set speed limit of 120 km/h was considered to have too small effects and therefore not

useful to assess. Also a speed limit of 100 km/h seems feasible and realistic and is considerably

lower than the limit in Scenario 1. A lower limit, for example of 90 km/h or lower, would result in

relatively high differences in speed between N1 and M1 vehicles and is not deemed realistic.

6.3.2 ISA scenarios

The argumentation for the type of ISA systems that are evaluated for LCVs is the same as for

HCVs and was described in section 5.2.2. The two ISA scenarios for LCVs that are evaluated are as

follows:

Scenario 3 (LCV3): All N1-vehicles are equipped with an “Advisory/informing” or

“warning” driver feedback with variable posted speed limit information.

Scenario 4 (LCV4): All N1-vehicles are equipped with a “Voluntary” driver feedback with

fixed posted speed limit information.

The argumentation for the type of ISA systems that are evaluated for LCVs is the same as for

HCVs. Furthermore it should be noted that there is currently no mandatory application of speed

limiters for LCVs. Scenarios with both speed limiters and ISA systems would therefore take two

steps at once. The proposed scenarios with only ISA systems or speed limiters make it possible to

compare the impacts of speed limiters with the impacts of ISA systems, as was also requested in the

terms of reference for this study.

Scenario 3 would leave maximum freedom to drivers and is technically feasible. The driver is

informed or warned on the speed limits through visual or auditory means when the driven speed

exceeds the posted speed limit. The ISA system takes no invasive actions. In addition to the fixed

speed limits, the recommended driving speed depends on the road type, traffic and weather

conditions.

In scenario 4, the voluntary ISA system can be expected to have a much higher impact than

scenario 3, based on the literature review and can still be regarded as a feasible scenario. The driving

speed depends only on the posted speed limit for that road and the driver is presented with tactile

feedback through the accelerator pedal when exceeding the speed limit. The driver experiences a

higher pressure required on the operation of the accelerator pedal to increase driving speed.


6.3.3 Overview of all four scenarios

We can summarize the four scenarios for LCVs as follows.

Table 6-1: Summary of the scenarios for the ex-ante analysis for LCVs

Speed limiter LCVs (type N1) ISA system

Reference no no

LCV1 110 km/h no

LCV2 100 km/h no

LCV3 no Advisory/open – variable speed limit information

LCV4 no Half-open – fixed speed limit information

In all four scenarios for LCVs, the posted speed limits for all vehicle categories are not changed and

also the speed set in the speed limiters of HCVs remains the same. The current speed limit for N1-

vehicles in many countries is the same as for cars, between 110 km/h and 130 km/h (or no limit as

on most of the motorways in Germany), so the effects of these scenarios will differ per country.

6.4 Impacts on speeds

Within this section the focus lies on the first and the second scenario as in these scenario a speed

limiter is introduced. Table 6-2 shows the average speed and the standard deviation for the

reference case (no speed limiter), scenario 1 (speed limiter at 110 km/h) and scenario 2 (speed

limiter at 100 km/h). The impact on the speed on rural roads is included, as on some rural roads

the speeds are equal or around 100 and 110 km/h, so speed limiters can have significant impacts

there as well. High and low refer the member states with high or low posted speed limit; for more

details see section 2.6.7.

The speed impacts for scenario 3 and 4 have not been quantified, as the impacts on safety and

emissions will follow directly from the literature on ISA.

Table 6-2: Average speed and standard deviation for LCVs under different scenarios, motorways

Before (without sped limiter)

After

Member State type

Road type Scenario Posted speed

limit

Average speed

Speed deviation

Speed limiter

Average speed

Speed deviation

Change in average

speed

Low Motorway LCV 1 115 107 16 110 102 10 -5%

Low Motorway LCV 2 115 107 16 100 96 7 -10%

High Motorway LCV 1 130 115 16 110 106 7 -8%

High Motorway LCV 2 130 115 16 100 98 4 -15%

Low Rural roads LCV 1 90 80 14 110 80 14 0%

Low Rural roads LCV 2 90 80 14 100 79 13 -1%

High Rural roads LCV 1 100 90 14 110 89 13 -1%

High Rural roads LCV 2 100 90 14 100 88 11 -2%



This section presents the results of the ex-ante evaluation of impacts on road safety for LCVs.

6.5.1 Safety impacts at Member State level

The effect of the introduction of the speed limiter for LCVs varies per Member States like it did for

HCVs, because some Member States have higher posted speed limits. For Member States with high

posted speed limits the effect of the speed limiter and the reduction in average speed (and therefore

of accidents) are higher. Table 6-3 and Table 6-4 show the results of the model in Member States

with low and high posted speed limits97.

Table 6-3: Impacts of different scenarios for LCVs on accident rates for Member States with low

maximum speeds (based on Elvik, 2009)

Scenario

Road

LCV1

Speed limiter for LCVs at 110 km/h

LCV2

Speed limiter for LCVs at 100 km/h

LCV3

Advisory ISA for all LCVs

LCV4

Voluntary ISA for all LCVs

motorway Average speed -5% -10%

Fatal accidents -12% -23% -9% -25%

Serious injury accidents -8% -16% -4% -19%

All injury accidents -5% -10% -2% -11%

rural Average speed -0% -1%








97 The low posted speed limit is 115 km/h for LCVs on motorways. The high posted speed limit is 130 km/h for LCVs

on motorways. For rural roads the low and high posted speed limits are 90 km/h and 100 km/h.


Table 6-4: Impacts of different scenarios for LCVs on accident rates for Member States with high

maximum speeds (based on Elvik, 2009)

Scenario

Road

LCV1 Speed limiter for

LCVs at 110 km/h


LCVs at 100 km/h

LCV3 Advisory ISA for

all LCVs

LCV4 Voluntary ISA for

all LCVs













The decrease in average speed in the speed limiter scenarios is substantial. Between -5% and -8% in

scenario 1, and between -10% and -15% in scenario 2. Therefore the effects on road safety are very

large on motorways. This can be explained by the fact that on average LCVs drive faster than the

maximum speed of the speed limiter (110 km/h and especially 100 km/h). Also, the speed

deviation is high and therefore many LCVs drive much faster than the speed limiter.

On rural roads the effect is smaller, only for a speed limiter at 100 km/h on rural roads with high

posted speed limits there is a small change in average speed and an effect on accidents.

The results for the ISA scenarios are comparable to those of the ex-ante evaluation for HCVs.

Advisory ISA has a relative small effect on motorways, and a similar effect compared to scenario 2

for rural roads with a high maximum speed. Voluntary ISA has a significant effect on all road types,

but smaller than the speed limiter on motorways.

6.5.2 Safety impacts at EU-level

The analysis was carried out for every Member State and the reduction percentages were applied to

the accident data per Member State with LGVs involved. The aggregated results at the EU level are

shown in Table 6-5, which shows the accident reduction rate for the four scenarios for LCVs, on

motorways, rural roads and urban roads.


Table 6-5: Road safety effect for the LCV scenarios on the number of accidents at EU level

Scenario

Road type Number of accidents

LCV1

Speed limiter for LCVs at

110 km/h

LCV2


100 km/h

LCV3


LCV4


motorway Fatal accidents 249 -41 (-16%) -69 (-28%) -22 (-9%) -62 (-25%)

Serious injury accidents 1,211 -140 (-12%) -245 (-20%) -50 (-4%) -225 (-19%)

All injury accidents 7,041 -490 (-7%) -900 (-13%) -170 (-2%) -805 (-11%)

rural Fatal accidents 1,275 -15 (-1%) -55 (-4%) -111 (-9%) -317 (-25%)

Serious injury accidents 4,750 -44 (-1%) -155 (-3%) -197 (-4%) -883 (-19%)

All injury accidents 21,915 -149 (-1%) -505 (-2%) -530 (-2%) -2,506 (-11%)

urban Fatal accidents 813 0 (0%) 0 (0%) -71 (-9%) -202 (-25%)

Serious injury accidents 6,339 0 (0%) 0 (0%) -262 (-4%) -1,179 (-19%)

All injury accidents 45,333 0 (0%) 0 (0%) -1,097 (-2%) -5,183 (-11%)

all roads Fatal accidents 2,337 -56 (-2%) -124 (-5%) -204 (-9%) -582 (-25%)

Serious injury accidents 12,300 -184 (-1%) -400 (-3%) -509 (-4%) -2,287 (-19%)

All injury accidents 74,289 -638 (-1%) -1,405 (-2%) -1,798 (-2%) -8,494 (-11%)

The results show that the effect of the speed limiter in scenario 2 is more than double the effect in

scenario 1. Because the number of accidents on rural and urban roads is much larger than on

motorways, absolute the accident reduction is relatively large on those road types. ISA systems have

a large overall effect.

Figure 6-1 shows the road safety effect on fatal accidents, expressed in a reduction of the total

number of fatal accidents on all roads. The distinction between road types is clear, the ISA systems

have a larger effect on rural and urban roads. The effect of the speed limiter of 100 km/h on

motorways is very large. Due to the relatively high number of fatal accidents on rural and urban

roads, the ISA scenarios have overall higher reduction rates than the speed limiter scenarios.

Figure 6-1: Road safety effect on fatal accidents – LCV scenarios

Figure 6-2 shows the road safety effect on serious injury accidents, expressed in a reduction of the

total number of fatal accidents on all roads. The effect in scenario 2 is more than double the effect

in scenario 1. The effect on rural roads is also notable.

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

urban

rural

motorway


Figure 6-2: Road safety effect on serious injury accidents – LCV scenarios

Figure 6-3 shows the road safety effect on all injury accidents, expressed in a reduction of the total

number of fatal accidents on all roads. The effect of the ISA systems on the motorway is relatively

small, compared to the speed limiters. The difference between the ISA systems stands out.

Figure 6-3: Road safety effect on all injury accidents – LCV scenarios

6.5.3 Safety impacts of changes in speed dispersion

For the ex-ante evaluation of the LCV scenarios also the effect of a change in speed dispersion was

calculated, according to the studies of Taylor (2000) and Kloeden (2001). This was done only for

scenario 1 and 2, because there was no simulation possible for the speed dispersions of the ISA

scenarios. Table 6-6 shows the results. A positive sign corresponds to an additional improvement of

the road safety (on top of the impacts from reductions in average speeds that were estimated in the

previous two sections).

Table 6-6: Safety effect of the change in speed dispersion in HCV scenarios 1 and 2

Scenario

Road


LCVs at 110 km/h


LCVs at 100 km/h

motorway Taylor ++ +

Kloeden +/- -

rural Taylor + +

Kloeden + +

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

urban

rural

motorway

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

urban

rural

motorway


The decrease of speeds for LCVs generally also has a positive effect on road safety according to the

relationship between road safety and speed dispersion. However, for motorways the results are

different. Taylor includes both average speed and speed deviation in his formula and this leads to a

positive effect in scenario 1, as the average speed and speed deviation are reduced and the speed

deviation. In scenario 2, the average speed is further reduced, but the speed deviation is larger

compared to scenario 1, as the speed differences between cars and LCVs were increased. This

becomes clear in the result of the calculation with the formula of Kloeden, which compares the

speed of each individual vehicle with the average speed. In scenario 2 the passenger cars will drive

faster compared to the reduced average speed and have a relative higher risk. This effect is

dominant because of the high share of passenger cars. In this respect, the speed limiter has a

negative effect. For rural roads the formulas of Taylor and Kloeden show similar results. A

reduction in speed will reduce the overall speed differences on the road and has a positive effect on

road safety according to the relationship between safety and speed dispersion.

6.5.4 Conclusion on safety impacts

The ex-ante evaluation on road safety of the LCV scenarios show a large reduction in average speed

for the application of speed limiters. The accident reduction rate is very high on motorways. The

number of fatal accidents is relatively low and therefore the overall effect on road safety is small.

Compared with an estimation of the ISA effects, the accident reduction on motorways is much

larger for the speed limiter scenarios. On rural and urban roads however the effects of ISA will be

larger.

Overall, scenario 4 (with a voluntary ISA system) shows by far the largest improvements in traffic

safety. The number of fatal accidents with N1-vehicles involved is expected to reduce by about

25%, corresponding to a reduction of about 600 fatal accidents annually.


6.6.1 Emission impacts at Member State level

The emission impacts of the speed limiter scenarios were estimated using the VERSIT+ model of

TNO and the emission impacts of the ISA scenarios based on literature. First the emission impacts

are presented at Member State level, for an ‘average’ Member State with either low or high posted

speed limits98.

98 The changes in speed shown here refer to changes in the average speed of the speed profile of an average vehicle.

These can be different from the changes in average speeds shown in the section on the safety impacts, because the latter

refer to changes in the average speed of the speed distribution (of all vehicles).


Table 6-7: Effect of different scenarios for LCVs on CO2, NOx and PM emissions for Member States with


Scenario

Road


LCVs at 110 km/h


LCVs at 100 km/h

LCV3 Advisory ISA for

all LCVs

LCV4 Voluntary ISA for

all LCVs


CO2 -3% -9% 0% -3%

NOx -15% -33% 0% -

PM -3% -9% 0% -

rural Average speed 0% -0%

CO2 0% -0% 0% 0%

NOx 0% -2% 0% -

PM 0% -0% 0% -

Table 6-8: Effect of different scenarios for LCVs on CO2, NOx and PM emissions for Member States with


Scenario

Road

LCV1

Speed limiter for LCVs at 110

km/h

LCV2


km/h

LCV3


LCV4



CO2 -8% -14% 0% -3%

NOx -34% -49% 0% -

PM -8% -14% 0% -


CO2 -1% -5% 0% 0%

NOx -6% -21% 0% -

PM -1% -5% 0% -

For scenario 1, where a speed limiter with a maximum speed of 110 km/h is introduced on LCVs,

both the driving dynamics and average velocity are expected to decrease. As can be seen in Table

6-7, this results in lower emissions to up to approximately 34% in case of a posted speed limit of

130 km/h. The effects for NOx are the largest and for CO2 and PM about the same.

On rural roads with low posted speed limits the effect of the speed limiter are negligible as the

speed limiter hardly affects the speed profile, i.e. the maximum speed without speed limiter would

not are barely rise above 110 km/h. The effects for rural roads with high posted speed limits is also

small, only for NOx there is a reduction of 6%.

In scenario 2, an introduction of speed limiters on LCVs with a maximum velocity of 100 km/h,

would result in an even higher emission reduction than with a maximum velocity of 110 km/h as

can be seen in Table 6-7 and Table 6-8. On rural roads with low posted speed limits however, the

speed limiter still hardly affects the speed and therefore emissions are also hardly decreased.

For the ISA scenarios the overall effect is very limited. As stated in section 2.5.3, ISA can have a

positive effect on vehicle emissions. The biggest effect is achieved in case of a mandatory system

while driving on motorways. In scenario 3 an advisory ISA system is introduced, but the effect on


emissions can be assumed to be negligible for these vehicles. The voluntary ISA systems only has a

noticeable effect on motorways of about 3.4% (see 2.5.3).

On rural roads, the maximum speed limiter velocity is higher than the posted speed limit. In theory,

ISA could have an effect on the speed profiles of LCVs on rural roads. However, as explained in

section 2.5.3, the effect of ISA on rural roads is very small. Therefore the overall marginal effect of

ISA is assumed to be limited for LCVs.

6.6.2 Emission impacts at EU level

The emission reductions were applied to every Member State according to the posted speed limits

per Member State. The result on EU level is presented in Table 6-9.

Table 6-9: Ex-ante emission reduction by LCVs on motorways and rural roads in EU27 (year: 2010)

Scenario

Emissions (tonnes)

LCV1


110 km/h

LCV2


km/h

LCV3

Advisory ISA for all

LCVs

LCV4


motorway CO2 8,282,120 -551,245 (-7%) -1,072,876 (-13%) 0 (0%) -281,592 (-3%)

NOx 18,982 -4,819 (-25%) -7,976 (-42%) 0 (0%) -

PM 1,494 -88 (-6%) -180 (-12%) 0 (0%) -

rural CO2 26,685,603 -116,039 (-0%) -599,756 (-2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

NOx 110,192 -2,405 (-2%) -10,226 (-9%) 0 (0%) -

PM 7,173 -28 (-0%) -145 (-2%) 0 (0%) -

all non-urban roads CO2 34,967,723 -667,283 (-2%) -1,672,632 (-5%) 0 (0%) -281,592 (-1%)

NOx 129,174 -7,224 (-6%) -18,202 (-14%) 0 (0%) -

PM 8,667 -115 (-1%) -325 (-4%) 0 (0%) -

The emission reductions for scenario 1 of CO2, NOx and PM are approximately between 1% to 6%

of the emissions by LCVs on motorways and rural roads in the EU27 (Table 6-9). For scenario 2

the emission reductions of CO2, NOx and PM are higher, approximately between 4% to 14% of the

emissions by LCVs on motorways and rural roads in the EU27.

Figure 6-4 shows the emission effects for CO2, expressed in the total emissions on all non-urban

roads. It is clear that the effect in scenario 2 on CO2 is much higher. The effect on motorways is

higher than on rural roads.


Figure 6-4: CO2 emission effects for different emissions – LCV scenarios

In Figure 6-5 it is clear that scenario 2 is much more effective for emission reduction. In particular

the reduction of NOx and PM emissions on rural roads is much higher in scenario 2. The emission

reduction is higher for NOx.

Figure 6-5: Emission effects for NOx and PM emissions – LCV scenarios 1 and 2

-15%

-13%

-11%

-9%

-7%

-5%

-3%

-1%

1: Speed

limiter 110

2: Speed

limiter 100

3: ISA

Advisory

4: ISA

Voluntary

rural

motorway

-15%

-13%

-11%

-9%

-7%

-5%

-3%

-1%

1: Speed

limiter 110

2: Speed

limiter 100

1: Speed

limiter 110

2: Speed

limiter 100

NOx PM

rural

motorway


6.7 Market impacts

The main sources for the analysis of market impacts of the scenarios are the stakeholders’ and

government representatives’ survey, the interviews to transport operators and the literature review.

Main considerations are reported here below respectively for:

shifts between vehicle categories, in particular from HGVs to LGVs;


vehicle design;


level playing field and transport demand.

6.7.1 Scenarios 1 and 2: speed limiters for N1 vehicles

Market impacts related to scenarios 1 and 2 on the extension of the scope of the Speed Limitation

Directive to N1 vehicles are differently evaluated by the audience of interviewed road freight

transport operators as well as by governmental contacts and stakeholders participating to the

survey.

Long-distance operators with HGV fleets but also local/regional specialized freight operators with

more mixed fleets of N2 and also N1 vehicles are in favour of the introduction of speed limiters on

LGVs. Both types of respondents predict a general improvement of safety conditions but also a

general reduction of costs (fuel, other consumables, maintenance, etc.) and vehicles’ stops due to

engine breakages. One operator has also already installed speed limiters on its dedicated fleet of N1

vehicles delivering chips on a regional basis exactly for preventing damages, achieve fuel savings

and especially for preventing aggressive driving and increase safety. On the other hand, express

delivery couriers with a more extended network, mixed cargo shipments and more strict delivery

times are in general against this solution.

It is also true that in all those cases where LGVs are used for local and urban goods distribution

(i.e. when the greatest part of the trip takes place on roads where allowed speeds are well below the

limitations posed by the Directive) the expected market impacts of the Directive extension to

LGVs might be of minor relevance. With reference to the survey responses (as already reported in

section 3.6.2.), nearly 30% of the governmental contacts and half of the stakeholders agree on the

extension of speed limiters to N1 vehicles and the main reasons regard emission reduction and

increase in road safety.


Scenarios 1 and 2 are considered by some stakeholders as well as by some interviewed operators as

a step towards a more levelled playing field in road transport. By limiting the speeds of LCVs, the

two scenarios make LGVs (N1 vehicles) a bit less “attractive” in comparison to HGVs (N2/N3

regulated vehicles). As repeated already in the previous sections related to market impacts, the

choice of the commercial vehicles size (and therefore their development though the last years) is

influenced by many factors other than speed limitation, but vehicle speed certainly plays a role.

The presence of a market distortion between regulated N3/N2 fleets and unregulated N1 fleets

appears quite evident exactly by comparing the different vision of the interviewed operators: those

who have already experienced the benefits of speed limiters, or have less time and revenue

constraints, believe the extension would realign the current distortion among N2 and N1 vehicles,

and on the contrary opponents foresee the risk of increased operating and organizational costs.


The extension of the Speed Limitation Directive to N1 vehicles in scenarios 1 and 2 might have an

impact on the trend of this category not only from the perspective of HCVs fleet, but also with

reference to passenger cars. Indeed, there might be a shift from LGVs to M1 vehicles (small vans

and/or passenger cars) in the urban distribution sector, where in many cases passenger cars and

small vans are already used for own account shipments, such as for example those for procurement

of goods by small retail shops, bars and restaurants. This emerges from surveys conducted on

urban freight transport typology and frequency99, but unfortunately no specific studies have been

found to substantiate such an hypothesis. This could be an argument to include commercially used

M1 vehicles also to some extent (see section 7.3).


Lower speed for N1 vehicles is generally seen as a way to reduce vehicle operating and maintenance

costs. For operators that already installed speed limiters to their fleets this was one of the main

arguments for doing so and their experiences underline that cost savings can also be realised.

Vehicle design

According to different views, the extension of speed limiters to LGVs might have an impact on

vehicle design in terms of engine power downsizing, especially if this is considered in synergy with

the new CO2 emission limits for vans that are under discussion and that will be likely applied in the

next years. The 2010 study “Potential CO2 reduction from optimal engine sizing for light

commercial vehicles” of TNO and CE Delft suggests that low CO2 emissions limits combined with

speed limits will definitely move the market towards “optimal engine sizing”.


The two scenarios where speed limitation devices are extended to N1 vehicles are those where

compliance and administrative costs might have some impact. This is linked to the fact that LGVs

are often owned by SMEs, micro enterprises or self-employed, in many working as sub-contractors

of large distributors and/or logistic companies.

The issue of retrofitting exiting vehicles is a peculiarity of scenarios 1 and 2 and this is particularly

relevant for vehicles carrying goods on own account: the fleet of these vehicles is renovated at

lower pace in comparison to the one of large enterprises and therefore the implementation of the

Directive extension would imply measures for the retrofitting of the existing fleet, also to avoid

distorted conditions between new and old vehicles. This element was also confirmed by some road

passenger transport operators who declared an immediate and not predictable impact of the cost of

retrofitting the existing fleet in their adaptation of M2 vehicles.

The last consideration is related to fraud and enforcement. The information collected for the

implementation of the current Speed Limitation Directive cannot be directly transferred in this

case. The reflexions presented here above about the relevance of SMEs, micro enterprises and self-

employed as well as the need to foresee retrofitting measures suggest that ad-hoc enforcement

policies will have to be applied in order to avoid frauds and illegal behaviours.

99 See for example the survey carried out within the CityPorts project (Interreg Programme III B CADSES) or in the

Netherlands (Utrecht Amsterdam Rotterdam), where “passenger car” accounts for almost 1/3 of the shipments

(Dataverzameling Stedelijke Distributie, TU Delft, BESTUF 2006)



Level playing field impacts of these two scenarios are already mentioned here above when

discussing about the shifts between vehicles’ categories and concern the fact that in both Scenario 1

and 2 speed limits for LGVs (N1 vehicles) and HGVs (N2/N3 regulated vehicles) are made more

comparable, but also the possible consequence in the freight distribution sector, where a shift from

LGVs to M1 vehicles (small vans and/or passenger cars) might occur.

The potential impacts of Scenario 1 and 2 on the overall transport demand are considered of minor

entity, especially for all this cases where LGVs are used for freight distribution.

6.7.2 Scenarios 3 and 4: all N1 vehicles equipped with ISA systems

No major market impacts are considered for scenarios 3 and 4, which are characterised by different

types of ISA systems (respectively “informative” in scenario 3 and “voluntary” in scenario 4) but

don’t foresee variation of the speed allowed for LCVs.

A likely effect of the implementation of ISA systems on LCVs vehicles will be a stricter respect of

the posted speed limits on rural road, which would be more stringent for scenario 4 than for

scenario 3. The different opinions of stakeholders and governmental representatives in relation to

the ISA types are reported in section 3.6.3.

6.8 Main findings

Within this ex-ante evaluation the effects on road safety, emissions and the market has been

evaluated for four scenarios. Within the first scenario the speed limiter was introduced for N1-

vehicles with a maximum speed of 110 km/h. In the second scenario, the speed set was decreased

to 100 km/h for N1-vehicles. The last two scenarios applied an ISA system instead of the speed

limiter device. In the third scenario the N1-vehicles are equipped with an advisory/informative ISA

system. In the fourth scenarios theN1-vehciles are equipped with a voluntary ISA system.

Preferably also scenarios in which commercially used M1-vehicles (mini buses) are subject to the

obligation would have been included. However, due to data limitation this was not feasible. The

results presented here for LGVs, however, can be expected to be representative for commercially

used M1 vehicles, as the parameters determining the safety and emission impacts are largely the

same.

The effects on road safety of the first two scenarios were analysed using the same approach as for

the ex-post and ex-ante evaluation for HCVs. First the effect of the scenario on the average speed

and the standard deviation was analysed. Second, using the speed-accident relationships, the effect

on road safety was analysed. The road safety effects from the ISA systems were taken from

literature.

Overall the effect on road safety was largest for the fourth scenario in which a voluntary ISA

system is installed in all N1-vehicles. In this scenario the number of fatal accidents decreases with

25%, corresponding to about 600 fatal accidents a year. In this scenario, the number of seriously

injured decreases with 19% and overall there is a decrease of 11% in total accidents with N1-

vehicles involved. Like we saw in the ISA scenario for HCVs, in this scenario we see a reduction in

accidents for all road types - motorways, rural and urban - as ISA has an influence for all possible

speed limits. Also in the third scenario the ISA dominates the road safety effects and leads to a

decrease with 9% in fatal accidents, 4% in injuries and an overall reduction in accidents with N1-

vehciles involved with 2%.


Introducing speed limiters set at 100 km/h (scenario 2) results in smaller safety impacts than ISA: a

reduction in fatal accidents of 5%, in injuries of 3% and in all accidents of 2%. In case the limiters

are set at 110 km/h the impacts are even lower with 1-2% reduction rates in accidents with N1-

vehcile involved. However, it should be noticed that on motorways the safety impacts of speed

limiters for N1-vehicles are relatively high with 16% or 28%. These are much higher than in ISA

scenario 3 and with the 100 m/h speed limiter even somewhat higher than in scenario 4.

The emission impacts are rather different from the safety impacts. The reason is that where most of

the (sever and fatal) accidents take place on rural and urban roads (where ISA is most effectively), a

large share of emissions takes place at motorways (where limiters are very effective). Furthermore,

ISA systems have relatively small impacts on emission levels, where speed limiters can have

significant effects.

The highest emission reductions are found for scenario 2 with the speed limiters set at 100 km/h.

The emission reductions (on all non-urban roads) are for scenario 2 in the range of 4-5% for CO2

(corresponding to a reduction of about 2 Mtonnes of CO2) and PM and even 14% for NOx. In

scenario 1 (limiter at 110 km/h), the reduction in NOx is still 6%, but the reduction in CO2 and PM

estimated at only 1-2%. The emissions reductions in the ISA scenarios are even smaller.

The evaluation of the market impacts is based on interviews with road freight transport operators

as well as the survey results from governmental contacts and stakeholders. Scenarios 1 and 2 are

considered by some stakeholders as well as by some interviewed operators as a step towards a more

levelled playing field in road transport, but speed is not the only factor influencing the choice of the

commercial vehicle size. There might be a shift from LGVs to M1 vehicles, which is an argument

to include commercially used M1 vehicles also to some extent.

The extension of speed limiters to LGVs (or all LCVs) is generally seen as a way to reduce vehicle

operating and maintenance costs. The reason is that is could help to reduce both fuel costs and

accident costs. Furthermore, vehicle maintenance costs could be reduced.

In combination with new CO2 emission limits for vans it could also lead to engine power

downsizing. Concerning compliance costs, the Directive extension would imply measures for the

retrofitting of the existing fleet and ad-hoc enforcement policies will have to be applied in order to

avoid frauds and illegal behaviours. No major market impacts are considered for scenarios 3 and 4.


7 Conclusions and recommendations

7.1 Conclusions on the ex-post evaluation

Implementation of the Directive

According to the survey carried out in this project, no particular problems have been encountered

for the implementation of the Speed Limitation Directive with few exceptions related to

administrative and technical costs. For the Member States that replied to the questionnaire (63% of

all Member States), all have applied the maximum speeds set out in the Directive and regularly

check the vehicles' compliance with the Speed Limitation Directive; in most cases this done in

roadside inspections and/or yearly roadworthiness tests.

Speed impacts

The impacts of the Directive on actual vehicle speeds are hard to estimate due to data limitations.

When comparing the scarcely available historical data on traffic speeds, no clear effect of the

Directive on the speed distribution could be found.

Safety impacts

The statistical analysis of the evolution of the accident risk of HCVs over time gave no clear

evidence of the impact of the Directive on traffic safety. This is mainly due to three reasons. Firstly,

there is not a single year of implementation of the Directive, which makes that the possible effect is

spread over time. Secondly, together with the Directive many other regulations came into place

which either directly or indirectly impacted traffic safety. Finally, as data limitations with regard to

vehicle-kilometres per road type only allowed for analysing accidents rates for all road types

together, the impacts of the speed limiters (mainly taking place on motorways) were not traceable in

the overall accident statistics.

However, the speed distribution of 10 years ago might not be representative today for a situation

without speed limiters, as the vehicles might drive much faster today. Hence, based on real data,

more theoretical speed distributions where assumed as well as the effect of speed limiters on these

distributions. Using these speed distributions with and without speed limiters, the impacts on safety

and emissions were calculated.

The analysis that was based on relationships between the speed distributions and accident rates

(and the impact of speed limiters on the speed distributions) showed that overall, the Directive had

a positive impact on traffic safety. Overall the impacts are estimated to be a reduction of 9% of

fatal accidents on motorways with HCVs involved, 4% of serious injuries and 3% of injury

accidents. The reduction percentages for just HGVs are about the same as for all HCVs, but for

buses these are higher with a reduction of 13% of fatal accidents, 7% of seriously injured and

overall a reduction of 4% for all injury accidents on motorways with buses involved. However, as

the number of accidents with buses is relatively small, the results should be treated with care as they

are more uncertain.


The total reduction in the number of annual fatalities due to the Speed Limitation Directive is

estimated at almost 50. These numbers should be regarded as indicative because the actual impacts

on traffic speeds are relatively uncertain. Moreover, the speed-accident relationships have several

limitations and are a simplification of the safety impacts.

Unfortunately, data is lacking to distinguish the road safety impacts of introducing speed limitation

devices in vehicle categories N2 and M2.

Emission impacts

With respect to the effect on emissions, by comparing speed profiles, it can be concluded that the

introduction of speed limiters lowers emissions of CO2, NOx and PM with 1% for HGVs and with

2% for buses for motorways with high posted speed limits. For motorways with low posted speed

limits the effect on emissions is negligible. The higher the average speed is before the introduction

of the speed limiter and the speed limiters speed, the higher the reduction in emissions. Overall, for

the EU as a whole it is estimated that the introduction of speed limiters decreased total HCV

emissions with 1%.

Market impacts

With respect to the market impacts the focus lies on the possible impacts on a shift between HCVs



countries did see this shift, but this could also be caused by other regulations (e.g. drinking and rest

times, tachograph) and to other influences (internet shopping) – rather than by the Speed

Limitation Directive. Fraud was not seen as a problem by the interviewees, but did come up as a

problem in the literature from outside the EU.

7.2 Conclusions on the ex-ante evaluations

Within the ex-ante evaluations the effects on road safety, emissions and the market have been

evaluated. Four scenarios for HCVs were evaluated and four for LCVs. Unfortunately, data is

lacking to evaluate the impacts of extending the scope of the Directive to commercially used M1-

vehicles. Therefore, the LCV scenarios were limited to LGVs (N1 vehicles).

Safety impacts

The analysis shows that overall the ISA scenarios have the highest reductions on road safety for

both HCVs and LCVs, in particular when the system is not just informative but also gives active

feedback (Voluntary ISA). For both HCVs and LCVs the scenario with such an ISA system (both

scenarios 4) shows a reduction in the number of fatal accidents in the EU with HCVs/LGVs

involved of about 25%, 18-19% for seriously injury accidents and 11% for all injury accidents with

HCVs/LGVs involved. This corresponds to a reduction in the number of fatalities per year of

respectively about 150 (ISA for HCVs) and 600 (ISA for LCVs).

Decreasing the speed limits to 80 km/h for HGVs and 90 km/h for buses (scenario 1) leads to a

decrease in fatal accidents with HCVs involved of about 5%. A similar reduction percentage was

found for the scenario with speed limiters for LGVs set at 100 km/h. These rates are lower than

for the ISA scenarios because speed limiters do only affect motorway traffic and rural roads with

relatively high posted speed limits; ISA systems have an impact on safety on all roads. Because the

absolute number of accidents is larger for these road types, ISA systems have a larger overall effect

on road safety.


It should be noticed, however, that speed limiters are an effective way to improve traffic safety on

motorways. When introduced for LGVs, fatal accidents on motorways would be reduced by 16%

or 28% (110 and 100 km/h speed limiter, respectively).

Emission impacts

The emission impacts are rather different from the safety impacts. The reason is that where most of

the (severe and fatal) accidents take place on rural and urban roads (where ISA is most effective), a

large share of emissions takes place at motorways (where limiters are very effective). Furthermore,

ISA systems reduce vehicle speeds in traffic situations that are relatively dangerous, such as in case

of road works or bad weather conditions. Limiting speed in such situations has relatively large

impacts on the overall traffic safety, but small impacts on the total emissions.

The highest emission reductions for the HCVs are found when the speed set with the speed

limiters is lowered to 80 km/h for HGVs and 90 km/h for buses. In that case emissions decrease

with approximately 4% to 6% of the emissions by HCVs on motorways and rural roads in the

EU27 (corresponding to a reduction of about 9 Mtonnes of CO2). The (additional) impacts of ISA

on emissions are insignificant.

For LCVs, the highest emission reductions are found for the scenario with a speed limit set at 100

km/h (scenario 2) with emission reductions on all non-urban roads of about 4-5% for CO2

(corresponding to a reduction of about 2 Mtonnes of CO2) and PM emissions and even 14% for

NOx. With a speed limiter set at 110 km/h, emissions reductions are less than half as high, while

the emissions reductions achieved by ISA are close to zero, like for HCVs.

Overall it can be concluded that the speed limiters can have a high impact on emissions, especially

on motorways. The effect of ISA systems is very limited.

Market impacts

The evaluation of the market impacts is based on interviews with road freight transport operators

as well as the survey results from governmental contacts and stakeholders.

For HCV scenario 1 it could be expected that further decreasing the speed leads to a shift towards

the less restricted LCVs and possibly leads to a positive effect with respect to the operating costs.

The LCV scenarios with speed limiters (scenario 1 and 2) are considered by some stakeholders as

well as by some interviewed operators as a step towards a more levelled playing field in road

transport. However it is also clear that speed is not the only factor influencing the choice of the

commercial vehicle size. Especially for local and urban goods distribution the expected market

impacts are small. There might be a shift from LGVs to M1 vehicles, which is an argument to

include commercially used M1 vehicles also to some extent.

The extension of speed limiters to LCVs is generally seen as a way to reduce vehicle operating and

maintenance costs, although difficult to quantify. In combination with new CO2 emission limits for

LCVs it could also lead to engine power downsizing resulting in additional CO2 reduction.

Concerning compliance costs, the Directive extension would imply measures for the retrofitting of

the existing fleet and ad-hoc enforcement policies will have to be applied in order to avoid frauds

and illegal behaviours. No major market impacts are considered for the ISA scenarios, both for

HCVs and LCVs.


Opinion of stakeholders and Member States

The majority of the interviewees is against a reduction of speeds for HCVs. Increasing the speed

limit does not get much support either.

Concerning the LCV scenarios, the long-distance operators with HGV fleets but also local/regional

specialized freight operators with more mixed fleets of N2 and also N1 vehicles are in favour of the

introduction of speed limiters on LGVs. On the other hand, express delivery couriers with a more

extended network, mixed cargo shipments and more strict delivery times are strongly against this

solution. Overall nearly 30% of the governmental contacts and half of the stakeholders agree on the

extension of speed limiters to N1 vehicles and the main reasons regard emission reduction and

increase in road safety.

Finally there is much support for ISA. 35% of governmental contacts and 82% of the stakeholders

believe that ISA system should be introduced to all commercial vehicles, above all in the form of

informative or supportive systems.

7.3 Answers to the evaluation questions

Table 7-1 lists the evaluation questions that were the starting point for this study (see also section

2.10). In the right column of the table, the main answer to each question is summarized. For the

full answers, we refer to sections listed in section 2.10.

Table 7-1: Evaluation questions

Evaluation Question Answer

Relevance

To what extent has the Speed Limitation Directive contributed to the improvement of road safety and environmental protection

in the context of other factors/initiatives having effects on road safety, fuel consumption and CO2 emissions?

The Directive has improved road safety, mainly on

motorways. The Directive had also some small impacts on emissions.

Effectiveness

What are the main results and impacts related to road safety, fuel consumption and CO2 emissions and level playing field of the measures set out in the Directive taking into account all

categories of heavy commercial vehicles, with special focus on the use of heavy commercial vehicles of category M2 and N2

with maximum mass exceeding 3.5 tonnes but not exceeding 7.5 tonnes?

Fatal accidents on motorways with HCVs involved are estimated to be reduced by 9%. The Directive has had very small impacts on emissions and fuel consumption

of HCVs (about 1% reduction). Insufficient data is available to make an estimation exclusively for M2 and

N2 vehicles or any other subcategory of those.

In consideration of the large amount of cross-border

traffic, the maximum speed imposed by the Directive ensured a level playing field in the single market for

HCVs.

Are there any other significant results and impacts of the

measures set out in the Directive than those mentioned above?

No other significant impacts are expected than those

mentioned above. There might be some reduction in operating costs. Costs have however not been

quantified in the frame of the present study

Which factors have hindered the improvement of road safety,

environmental protection and level playing field? No specific factors were found.

To what extent could further decreasing the speed limits as laid

down in the Directive and the use of various types of ISA systems improve the impacts achieved by the implementation of

the Directive?

Simply reducing the speed set by the limiters is expected

to reduce both fatal accidents with HCVs involved and HCVs' emissions with about 5%.

Introduction of an ISA system that provides feedback to the driver (a so-called ‘voluntary’ type of ISA) could reduce the number of fatal accidents with HCVs

involved by 25%, but would have hardly any impacts on emissions.

Would the application of speed limitation devices with specific speed limits to light commercial vehicles be necessary in view of

Extending the scope of the Directive to LCVs has potentially very significant impacts on road safety and


road safety, fuel consumption and CO2 emissions and the

application of ISA systems?

emissions. The application of ISA for LCVs are

expected to have similar reduction rates as mentioned above for HCVs. Due to the higher number of fatalities

involved in accidents with LCVs, the reduction in the absolute number of fatalities is much higher than for

HGVs.

Sustainability

What are the main problems with implementation of the

Directive in Member States? Is there any evidence on existence of fraud? If relevant, what is the extent and dynamics of

fraudulent practices?

Very few problems are observed. These are linked to

technical cost, administrative burdens and device manipulation. No particular problems related to frauds

emerged.

Given the technological developments, would exploitation of speed limitation devices be still appropriate in 5 years?

Yes, this would still be appropriate, because speed limiters are complementary to ISA systems, particularly

for reducing emissions and improving traffic safety on motorways. Furthermore ‘mandatory’ (intervening)

types of ISA are not expected to be sufficiently mature within 5 years.

Efficiency

Is there a scope for administrative burden and compliance/enforcement cost reduction while implementing the

Directive?

Except from few implementation problems no particular difficulties emerged. No significant costs were

raised by stakeholders.

Is there a scope for limiting burdens for SMEs and micro-

enterprises without significantly hindering the achievement of safety and emission reduction objectives of the Directive? Could

SMEs and micro-enterprises be excluded from the scope of the Directive?

No differences were observed in relation to the

behaviour of small/medium enterprises (SMEs) in comparison to large enterprises with respect to the

Directive provisions.

Would it be possible to achieve the same level of road safety and environmental protection more efficiently by other means (e.g.

infrastructure improvements, advanced solutions in vehicle construction, better enforcement of traffic rules)?

There are many other policies that can contribute to the improvement of safety and emissions reduction. Speed

limiters can be regarded as being very effective and complementary to other policies as they address

specifically the reduction of excessive driving speeds that have significant impacts on safety and emissions.

ISA systems are seen to be complementary to speed limiters, given that 'mandatory' systems are not yet

mature enough to replace these.

Could ISA systems be efficient enough to replace or complement

existing speed limitation devices? Would these technologies be mature enough for widespread implementation?

ISA systems of the type ‘informative’ or ‘ voluntary’ are

mature enough for widespread implementation within 5 years. Replacing existing speed limiters by ISA is not

recommended and does not get much support among stakeholders.

Utility

In the light of the targets set by the White Paper on Transport, can the impacts achieved by the implementation of the Directive

be considered as sufficient in medium and long term?

For meeting the long term objective with respect to road safety and emissions reductions, the impacts

achieved by the current Directive cannot be considered to be sufficient on its own. This highlights the

complementary function of this initiative to other measures aiming at improving reoad safety and reducing

emissions.

EU added value

Why should the introduction of speed limitation devices to commercial vehicles be regulated at EU level, and not left up to

each Member State to decide?

The main argument for legislation at the EU level regarding the introduction of speed limitation devices to

commercial vehicles, is to ensure a level playing field across Member States and vehicle categories.

7.4 Policy discussion and conclusions

The results of the ex-post evaluation suggest that there is no need to change the speed set for speed

limiters for HCVs. There is moreover not much support among stakeholders and Member States

for doing so.

On the other hand, based on the ex-ante evaluation, there are several options for improving the

effectiveness of the Speed Limitation Directive.


For reducing accidents and emissions, a combination of ISA and speed limiters is most effective.

ISA is very effective for improving safety (particularly for LCVs); speed limiters can well contribute

to reduction of emissions. The impacts on emissions of speed limiters are probably higher than

estimated in this study because of two additional effects that can be expected in the long term:

some reduction in the transport volume and engine power downsizing. Therefore, there are still

good arguments for applying speed limiters for the next 5 years, potentially integrated with an ISA

device.

The highest safety reductions could be achieved by requiring all commercial vehicles to be equipped

with an ISA system that provides tactile feedback to the driver. This could then be combined with

the existing speed limiters. Extending the scope of the Directive to LCVs is expected to have large

safety effects with a reduction of about 600 fatal accidents a year.

Overall it is clear from this study and previous studies on the subject that speed limiters and ISA

can achieve significant safety and emission benefits with an overall positive cost-benefit ratio. There

are many other policies that can contribute to the improvement of safety and emissions reduction.

Speed limiters and ISA can be regarded as being complementary to other policies as they address

specifically the reduction of excessive driving speeds that have significant impacts on safety and

emissions.

They contribute to key policy objectives of the 2011 White Paper on Transport, in particular with

respect to safety and climate: moving close to zero fatalities in road transport in 2050 and reducing

GHG emissions in 2050 by 60% compared to 1990 level. In line with the first goal, the EU aims at

halving road casualties by 2020 and has the ambition to be a world leader in safety and security of

transport in all modes of transport. In this context speed policy can be regarded as necessary, but

on its own not sufficient. The main argument for the EU to keep playing a role in speed policy is

to ensure a level playing field for all commercially used vehicles across Member States.

In the evaluation carried out in this study it was not feasible to simulate scenarios with subsets of

N1 or M1 vehicles covered by the Directive, due to the scarcity of available data. Assessing the

various options for distinguishing subcategories of LCVs are recommended as subject for further

study.

Other elements that could be further investigated are the costs associated to the Speed Limitation

Directive, including implementation costs, compliance costs, administrative costs, etc.

7.5 Recommendations

The main policy recommendations of this study are:

to keep the current obligation of speed limiters for HCVs and to keep the level of the

maximum speeds of the speed limiters at the current levels;

to further explore options for improving the effectiveness of the Speed Limitation

Directive, in particular by:

o requiring all commercial vehicles to be equipped with a ‘voluntary’ type of ISA (i.e.

that provides tactile feedback to the driver);

o requiring speed limiters for LCVs (N1 vehicles and possibly also a subset of M1

vehicles, see next bullet);

to investigate how commercially used M1 vehicles could covered by the legislation and

what vehicle parameters could be used to distinguish them from other M1 vehicles;


to further investigate options for including all or subsets of N1 vehicles, and in the case of

subsets of N1 vehicles, to investigate how such a subset could defined;

to set up a monitoring system for analysing the impacts of (amendments of) the Speed

Limitation Directive.


Annexes

Ex-post evaluation on the installation and

use of speed limitation devices

The information and views set out in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of

the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the

Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of

the information contained therein.

ANNEX 1: Member State questionnaire QUESTIONNAIRE on the implementation of directive 92/6/EEC, as amended by

directive 2002/85/ec, on speed limitation devices and relevant effects.

To help process the replies to this questionnaire, please provide any

written information in one of the EU official languages but preferably in

English.

COUNTRY

PERSON RESPONDING TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

Name:

Position (Job Title):

Authority/organisation:

Administrative address:

Tel.:

Fax:

E-mail address:

Please return by15/04/2013 your completed questionnaire to:

Caterina Rosa

e-mail: [email protected]

tel.:+39 02 57410380

address : TRT TRASPORTI E TERRITORIO srl, Via Rutilia 10/8, 20141 Milano (Italy)

134

Contract N° MOVE/C4/SER/2012-301/SI2.645986

Under Service framework contract N°MOVE/A3/350-2010

Title: “Ex-post evaluation of Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community, as amended by Directive 2002/85/EC”

Authors:

The present questionnaire is proposed within the framework of the preparation of

the Evaluation study on Speed Limitation Devices.

The study is carried out by a consortium of consultancy and research firms:

Transport & Mobility Leuven, TNO, CE Delft and TRT Trasporti e Territorio under a

contract with the European Commission.

The overall objective of this study is to assist the European Commission with the

evaluation of the current Directive 92/6/EEC, as amended by Directive

2002/85/EC, on the installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain

categories of motor vehicles in the European Union and to explore and assess

options for revising the Directive.

In this respect the study combines an ex-post evaluation of the current Directive

92/6/EEC as amended with an ex-ante evaluation of options for amendments. The

impact assessments and evaluations will be developed on the basis of data and

information collected through the present questionnaire, literature review and

interviews with stakeholders.

In particular the first step is to gather most of the relevant information/data

through this survey. These constitute an input for the calculation of the impacts on

vehicle speeds, safety, fuel consumption, emissions and the transport market for

both:

Ex-post evaluation of speed limitation Directive for Heavy Goods Vehicles

(HGVs) and buses;

Exploration and assessment of options for amending the Directive regarding

HGVs and buses and extending its scope with Light Commercial Vehicles

(LCVs).

135

QUESTIONNAIRE Notes

The time series data required in this questionnaire is very detailed and often split

into specific categories (e.g. vehicle categories, categories of roads and types of

accidents). In case you are not able to provide detailed data, we would very much

appreciate your effort to provide summary figures (e.g. data for the total of heavy

vehicles, data for all roads, data regarding accidents without further classifications

etc.).

Please note that figures for vehicle categories M1, N1, M3, M2, N3, N2 will be

asked. As mentioned in Directive 2002/85/EC, the categories of vehicles shall be

understood to be those defined in Annex II to Directive 2001/116/EC i.e.:

Category M3: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers, comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat, and having a maximum mass exceeding 5 tonnes.

Category M2: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of

passengers, comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat, and having a maximum mass not exceeding 5 tonnes.

Category M1: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers and comprising no more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat.

Category N3: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of goods and having a maximum mass exceeding 12 tonnes.

Category N2: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of goods and having a maximum mass exceeding 3.5 tonnes but not exceeding 12 tonnes.

Category N1: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of goods and having a maximum mass not exceeding 3.5 tonnes.

The questionnaire is structured in four sections:

Section 1: Implementation of Directive 2002/85/EC amending Directive 96/6/EEC

Section 2: Impacts of Directive 2002/85/EC Section 3: Quantitative data Section 4: Options for amending directive 2002/85/EC

Thank you very much in advance for filling out this questionnaire.

136

SECTION 1: IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 2002/85/EC

AMENDING DIRECTIVE 96/6/EEC

The Directive 2002/85/EC amending Directive 96/6/EC required Member States to

bring its provisions into force by 1stJanuary 2005 at the latest (Directive

2002/85/EC, Art. 2).

In this section information on the implementation of the Directive is asked in order

to find out what kind of implementation difficulties have been encountered.

0 Could you please indicate the maximum speed allowed to vehicles for different

type of roads?

Speed limit in km/h

M3 N3 M2 N2 M1 N1

Motorways

Interurban roads

Urban roads

* This question will be reported only in the questionnaires which will be sent to

those countries for which the information is not completely available at


1 Could you please explain how rules of Directive 96/6/EEC as amended are

enforced?

Answer:

137

2 Could you please indicate when checks on M3, N3, M2, N2 vehicle compliance

with Directive 96/6/EEC as amended are carried out in your country?

Every year

Every two years

Other (please specify)

Answer:

3 Could you please indicate the maximum speed used for speed limiters for heavy

goods vehicles and buses that are registered in your country? How is this tested

and enforced?

Answer:

4 Did you find any problems for the implementations of the provisions set in the

Directive?

Answer:

In particular:

4.1 Is there any evidence on existence of frauds? If relevant, which are the

dynamics of fraudulent practices?

Answer:

138

4.2 Did you experience substantial costs and administrative burden linked

to the implementation of the directive? Do you see a scope for

reducing the administrative burden and costs for

compliance/enforcement?

Answer:

4.3 Did you find any differences between small/medium enterprises (SME)

and large enterprises behaviours with respect to the Directive

provisions (e.g. different frequency of illegal behaviours/frauds)? Is

there any facilitation to SMEs?

Answer:

Please add further comments if needed.

139

5 Apart from the Directive 2002/85/EC, are there any further national policies

focusing on speed limitation of trucks and buses? If yes, please explain the

measures adopted

Answer:

140

SECTION 2: IMPACTS OF THE DIRECTIVE 2002/85/EC

Directive 92/6/EEC required Member States to oblige the installation of speed

limitation devices on M3 vehicles having a maximum weight exceeding 10 metric

tons and on N3 vehicles before 1 October 1993 (Directive 92/6/EEC, Art. 2, Art. 3,

Art. 7).

Directive 2002/85/EC extended the obligation to M3 vehicles having a maximum

mass between 5 and 10 tons, as well as to M2 and N2 vehicles, within January

2005 at the latest(Directive 2002/85/EC, Art. 1, Art. 2).

The questions in the following sections go through the effects of the installation on

M2, N2, M3 and N3 of speed limitation devices on:

- the stock of the relevant vehicles categories;

- the speed limits and speed profiles for buses/coaches and freight vehicles;

- pollutant emissions;

- road safety;

- the market, with focus on: vehicle design, vehicle shift, compliance costs, frauds.

2.1 IMPACTS OF SPEED LIMITATION DEVICES ON THE STOCK OF

VEHICLES

6 Have you observed a relation between the implementation of Directive

2002/85/EC and the trend in vehicles stock? e.g. has the obligation of installing

speed limitation devices in category M2 and N2 vehicles affected the stock of

these vehicles during the time or has a shift between various categories of

commercial vehicles taken place?

Answer:

141

2.2 IMPACTS OF SPEED LIMITATION DEVICES ON AVERAGE SPEEDS AND

SPEED PROFILES

7 Are there available analyses/studies (Pilot studies, Surveys, Impact

Assessments, Evaluation studies, etc.) at national scale on the impacts of speed

limitation devices on vehicle speed and speed profiles for buses/coaches and

freight vehicles (e.g. impacts on traffic flows/management, possible congestion

problems, etc.)? If so, where can these be found and what are the key results

and conclusions from these studies?

Answer:

142

2.3 IMPACTS OF SPEED LIMITATION DEVICES ON EMISSIONS

8 Are there analyses/studies available (Pilot studies, Surveys, Impact Assessment,

Evaluation studies, etc.) at a national scale on the impacts of the speed

limitation devices on:

- fuel consumption and CO2 emissions - other pollutant emissions (NOx, mass of particulates - PT)

If so, where can these be found and what are the key results and conclusions

from these studies?

Answer:

9 Which national policies with significant impact on emissions and impacts for

heavy vehicles have been implemented since 2002?

Answer:

143

2.4 IMPACTS OF SPEED LIMITATION DEVICES ON ROAD SAFETY

10 Are there analyses/studies available (Pilot studies, Surveys, Impact

Assessment, Evaluation studies, etc.) at a national scale of the effects of

speed limitation devices on road safety i.e. accident rates? If so, where can

these be found and what are the key results and conclusions from these

studies?

Answer:

11 Which national policies with significant impact on accident rates and impacts

for heavy vehicles have been implemented since 2002?

Answer:

12 Is there any information or studies available about driver behaviour change

after the installation of speed limitation devices (van or truck drivers are often

tempted to reach the maximum speed set by the limiters that, inter alia, makes

overtaking between two vehicles too long with various dangerous effects,

including "micro"-congestion)?

144

Answer:

2.5 MARKET IMPACTS OF SPEED LIMITATION DEVICES


Assessment, Evaluation studies, etc.) at a national scale on the impacts of

speed limitation devices on:

vehicle design(e.g. engines)

shifts between heavy goods vehicles and light commercial vehicles

transport demand

frauds


from these studies?

Answer:

145

SECTION 3: QUANTITATIVE DATA

This section aims at collecting quantitative data differentiated to vehicle category,

type of roads and accidents related to specific issues of the previous questions i.e.:

stock of vehicles, speed detected, road safety.

In case you cannot provide the detailed data required below, please send us the

relevant more aggregated information you have. Please also provide us with

websites or relevant studies other than those you already mentioned in previous

questions.

3.1 STOCK OF VEHICLES

14 Could you please indicate the stock of vehicles for each vehicle category

since 1999, as reported in the table below?

Years

M3

N3 M2 N2 M1 N1 Max

mass

> 10

tons

5 tons<

max

mass≤

10 tons

Total

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

146

Answer:

15 Is there data available on vehicle kilometre registered per vehicle category

(M3, M2, N3, N2, M1, N1 vehicles) and per road type (motorways and

interurban roads)? When available, please provide us with time series of this

data (1999/2000-2012) or an analysis of such data. If this data is available,

please also indicate where these can be found?

Answer:

147

3.2 DATA ON SPEED DETECTED

16 Is there data available on speed detected (both average speed and variation in

speeds observed), differentiated per vehicle category (category M3, M2, N3,

N2, M1, N1 vehicles)? When available, please provide us with time series of this

data (1999/2000-2012) or an analysis of such data. If this data is available,

please also indicate where these can be found?

Answer:

17 Is there data available on speed detected, differentiated per type of roads,

e.g. motorways and interurban roads? When available, please provide us

with time series of this data (1999/2000-2012) or an analysis of such data.

If this data is available, please also indicate where these can be found?

Answer:

3.3 DATA ON ROAD SAFETY

18 Is there more detailed data available on accidents recorded than the data

reported in the CARE database? When available, please provide us with time

series of this data (1999/2000-2012) or an analysis of such data. If this data

is available, please also indicate where this can be found?

In particular the following data differentiation would be important:

Number and severity of accidents per vehicle category (M3, M2, N3, N2) and type of road (motorways and interurban roads)

Number and severity of accidents provoked by the excessive heavy vehicle speed differentiated per type of road (motorways and interurban roads)

Number and severity of accidents caused by heavy vehicles below 7.5 tons

differentiated per vehicle category (M3, M2, N2) and type of road (motorways and interurban roads)

Number and severity of accidents caused by heavy vehicles weighting more than 7.5 tons, differentiated per vehicle category (M3, N3, N2) and type of road (motorways and interurban roads)

148

Answer:

3.4 DATA ON FRAUDS DETECTED

19 Is there data available on the number and type of frauds detected? When

available, please provide us with time series of this data (1999/2000-2012)

or an analysis of such data. If this data is available, please also indicate

where these can be found?

Answer:

149

SECTION 4: OPTIONS FOR AMENDING DIRECTIVE

2002/85/EC

Options for amending Directive2002/85/E Care investigated in the present section.

The focus is on six main options:

1) Keep the current speed limits for heavy goods vehicles

2) Increase the speed limits for heavy goods vehicles

3) Decrease of speed limits for heavy goods vehicles

4) Extend the requirement for using speed limitation devices to light goods

vehicles (N1 category)

5) Introduce speed limitation devices for light passenger vehicles like

minibuses/vans (M1 category)

6) Introduce ISA (Intelligent Speed Assistance/Adaptation) systems for some or

all commercial vehicles

The aim is to be provided with relevant opinions in view of possible Directive

amendments.

20 The European Commission is evaluating the possibility to introduce some of the

following amendments to Directive 2002/85/EC. Please indicate the option/s

you could agree with.



3) Decrease limits for heavy good vehicles

4) Extend speed limitation devices to light goods vehicles(N1 category)

5) Introduce speed limitation devices to light passenger vehicles like


6) Introduce Intelligent Speed Assistance/Adaptation systems for all

commercial vehicles

In case of selection, please specify which type of ISA system should be introduced:

6.1) Informative or Advisory: this gives the driver feedback in the form of a

150

visual or an audio signal

6.2) Supportive or Warning: this works in the form of increasing the upward

pressure on the pedal or cancelling a driver's throttle demand if it demands

more throttle than is required to drive at the speed limit

6.3) Mandatory or Intervening: this prevents any speeding, for example, by

reducing fuel injection or by requiring a "kick-down" by the driver if he or she

wishes to exceed the limit

7) Introduce Intelligent Speed Assistance/Adaptation systems for some commercial

vehicle categories. Please indicate the vehicle categories and the type of ISA

systems according to the above mentioned definitions

Vehicle categories:______________________

Type of ISA systems

Informative or Advisory

Supportive or Warning

Mandatory or Intervening

8) Other alternative options for amendment

Please explain what amendment and for which reasons:

Answer:

21 Could you please justify your selection/s? In case you have any information on

the impacts which would result from the above mentioned amendments, please

provide us with these.

Answer:

Thank you for completing this questionnaire!

151

ANNEX 2: Stakeholder/expert

questionnaire

QUESTIONNAIRE on the implementation of directive 92/6/EEC, as

amended by directive 2002/85/ec, on speed limitation devices and

relevant effects.

To help process the replies to this questionnaire, please provide any

written information in one of the EU official languages but preferably in

English.

COUNTRY

PERSON RESPONDING TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

Name:

Position (Job Title):

Authority/organisation:

Administrative address:

Tel.:

Fax:

E-mail address:

152

Please return by19/04/2013 your completed questionnaire to:

Caterina Rosa

e-mail: [email protected]

tel.:+39 02 57410380

address : TRT TRASPORTI E TERRITORIO srl, Via Rutilia 10/8, 20141 Milano (Italy)

Contract N° MOVE/C4/SER/2012-301/SI2.645986

Under Service framework contract N°MOVE/A3/350-2010

Title: “Ex-post evaluation of Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community, as amended by Directive 2002/85/EC”

Authors:

The present questionnaire is proposed within the framework of the preparation of

the Evaluation study on Speed Limitation Devices.

The study is carried out by a consortium of consultancy and research firms:

Transport & Mobility Leuven, TNO, CE Delft and TRT Trasporti e Territorio under a

contract with the European Commission.

The overall objective of this study is to assist the European Commission with the

evaluation of the current Directive 92/6/EEC, as amended by Directive

2002/85/EC, on the installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain

categories of motor vehicles in the European Union and to explore and assess

options for revising the Directive.

In this respect the study combines an ex-post evaluation of the current Directive

92/6/EEC as amended with an ex-ante evaluation of options for amendments. The

impact assessments and evaluations will be developed on the basis of data and

information collected through a detailed questionnaire sent to all EU transport

ministers/competent offices, literature review and interviews with stakeholders

(including this specific survey).

153

QUESTIONNAIRE Notes

The time series data required in this questionnaire is very detailed and often split

into specific categories(e.g. vehicle categories, categories of roads and types of

accidents). In case you are not able to provide detailed data, we would very much

appreciate your effort to provide summary figures (e.g. data for the total of heavy

vehicles, data for all roads, data regarding accidents without further classifications

etc.).

Please note that figures for vehicle categories M1, N1, M3, M2, N3, N2 will be

asked. As mentioned in Directive 2002/85/EC, the categories of vehicles shall be

understood to be those defined in Annex II to Directive 2001/116/EC i.e.:

Category M3: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers, comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat, and having a maximum mass exceeding 5 tonnes.

Category M2: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of

passengers, comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat, and having a maximum mass not exceeding 5 tonnes.

Category M1: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers and comprising no more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat.

Category N3: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of goods and having a maximum mass exceeding 12 tonnes.

Category N2: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of goods and having a maximum mass exceeding 3.5 tonnes but not exceeding 12 tonnes.

Category N1: Vehicles designed and constructed for the carriage of goods and having a maximum mass not exceeding 3.5 tonnes.

The questionnaire is structured in three sections:

Section 1: Impacts of Directive 2002/85/EC Section 2: Quantitative data Section 3: Options for amending directive 2002/85/EC

Thank you very much in advance for filling out this questionnaire.

154

SECTION 1: IMPACTS OF THE DIRECTIVE 2002/85/EC

Directive 92/6/EEC required Member States to oblige the installation of speed

limitation devices on M3 vehicles having a maximum weight exceeding 10 metric

tons and on N3 vehicles before 1 October 1993 (Directive 92/6/EEC, Art. 2, Art. 3,

Art. 7).

Directive 2002/85/EC extended the obligation to M3 vehicles having a maximum

mass between 5 and 10 tons, as well as to M2 and N2 vehicles, within January

2005 at the latest(Directive 2002/85/EC, Art. 1, Art. 2).

The questions in the following sections go through the effects of the installation on

M2, N2, M3 and N3 of speed limitation devices on:

- the market;

- the stock of the relevant vehicles categories;

- the speed limits and speed profiles for buses/coaches and freight vehicles;

- pollutant emissions;

- road safety;

1.1 MARKET IMPACTS OF SPEED LIMITATION DEVICES


Assessment, Evaluation studies, etc.) on the impacts of speed limitation

devices on:

vehicle design(e.g. engines)

shifts between heavy goods vehicles and light commercial vehicles

transport demand

frauds


from these studies?

Answer:

155

1.2 IMPACTS OF SPEED LIMITATION DEVICES ON THE STOCK OF

VEHICLES

2 Have you observed a relation between the implementation of Directive

2002/85/EC and the trend in vehicles stock? e.g. has the obligation of installing

speed limitation devices in category M2 and N2 vehicles affected the stock of

these vehicles during the time or has a shift between various categories of

commercial vehicles taken place?

Answer:

1.3 IMPACTS OF SPEED LIMITATION DEVICES ON AVERAGE

SPEEDS AND SPEED PROFILES


Assessments, Evaluation studies, etc.) on the impacts of speed limitation devices

on vehicle speed and speed profiles for buses/coaches and freight vehicles (e.g.

impacts on traffic flows/management, possible congestion problems, etc.)? If so,

where can these be found and what are the key results and conclusions from

these studies?

Answer:

156

1.4 IMPACTS OF SPEED LIMITATION DEVICES ON EMISSIONS

4 Are there analyses/studies available(Pilot studies, Surveys, Impact Assessment,

Evaluation studies, etc.) on the impacts of the speed limitation devices on:

- fuel consumption and CO2 emissions - other pollutant emissions (NOx, mass of particulates - PT)


from these studies?

Answer:

1.5 IMPACTS OF SPEED LIMITATION DEVICES ON ROAD SAFETY

5 Are there analyses/studies available (Pilot studies, Surveys, Impact

Assessment, Evaluation studies, etc.) on the effects of speed limitation

devices on road safety i.e. accident rates? If so, where can these be found

and what are the key results and conclusions from these studies?

Answer:

6 Is there any information or studies available about driver behaviour change

after the installation of speed limitation devices (van or truck drivers are often

tempted to reach the maximum speed set by the limiters that, inter alia, makes

overtaking between two vehicles too long with various dangerous effects,

including "micro"-congestion)?

Answer:

157

SECTION 2: QUANTITATIVE DATA

This section aims at collecting quantitative data differentiated to vehicle category,

type of roads and accidents related to specific issues of the previous questions i.e.:

stock of vehicles, speed detected, road safety.

In case you cannot provide the detailed data required below, please send us the

relevant more aggregated information you have. Please also provide us with

websites or relevant studies other than those you already mentioned in previous

questions.

2.1 STOCK OF VEHICLES

7 Is there available data on the stock of vehicles for each vehicle category

(M3 with maximum mass > 10 tons, M3 with 5 tons< max mass≤ 10 tons,

M3 as total, N3, M2, N2, M1, N1) since 1999?

Answer:

2.2 DATA ON ROAD SAFETY

8 Is there more detailed data available on accidents recorded than the data

reported in the CARE database? When available, please provide us with time

series of this data (1999/2000-2012) or an analysis of such data. If this data

is available, please also indicate where this can be found?

In particular the following data differentiation would be important:

Number and severity of accidents per vehicle category (M3, M2, N3, N2) and type of road (motorways and interurban roads)

Number and severity of accidents provoked by the excessive heavy vehicle speed differentiated per type of road (motorways and interurban roads)

Number and severity of accidents caused by heavy vehicles below 7.5 tons differentiated per vehicle category (M3, M2, N2) and type of road (motorways and interurban roads)

Number and severity of accidents caused by heavy vehicles weighting more than 7.5 tons, differentiated per vehicle category (M3, N3, N2) and type of road (motorways and interurban roads)

Answer:

158

2.3 DATA ON FRAUDS DETECTED

9 Is there data available on the number and type of frauds detected? When

available, please provide us with time series of this data (1999/2000-2012)

or an analysis of such data. If this data is available, please also indicate

where these can be found?

Answer:

159

SECTION 3: OPTIONS FOR AMENDING DIRECTIVE

2002/85/EC

Options for amending Directive2002/85/EC are investigated in the present section.

The focus is on six main options:



3) Decrease of speed limits for heavy goods vehicles

4) Extend the requirement for using speed limitation devices to light goods

vehicles (N1 category)

5) Introduce speed limitation devices for light passenger vehicles like


6) Introduce ISA (Intelligent Speed Assistance/Adaptation) systems for some or

all commercial vehicles

The aim is to be provided with relevant opinions in view of possible Directive

amendments.

10 The European Commission is evaluating the possibility to introduce some of the

following amendments to Directive 2002/85/EC. Please indicate the option/s

you could agree with.



3) Decrease limits for heavy good vehicles

4) Extend speed limitation devices to light goods vehicles(N1 category)

5) Introduce speed limitation devices to light passenger vehicles like


6) Introduce Intelligent Speed Assistance/Adaptation systems for all

commercial vehicles

160

In case of selection, please express your attitude towards the following

types of ISA according to the options “Positive/Neutral/Negative”:

6.1) Informative or Advisory: this gives the driver feedback in

the form of a visual or an audio signal

6.2) Supportive or Warning: this works in the form of increasing

the upward pressure on the pedal or cancelling a driver's

throttle demand if it demands more throttle than is

required to drive at the speed limit

6.3) Mandatory or Intervening: this prevents any speeding, for

example, by reducing fuel injection or by requiring a "kick-

down" by the driver if he or she wishes to exceed the limit

161

7) Introduce Intelligent Speed Assistance/Adaptation systems for some commercial

vehicle categories. Please indicate the vehicle categories and the type of ISA systems

according to the above mentioned definitions

Vehicle categories:______________________

Type of ISA systems

Informative or Advisory

Supportive or Warning

Mandatory or Intervening

8) Other alternative options for amendment

Please explain what amendment and for which reasons:

Answer:

11 Could you please justify your selection/s? In case you have any information on

the impacts which would result from the above mentioned amendments, please

provide us with these.

Answer:

Thank you for completing this questionnaire!

162

ANNEX 3: Posted Speed limits on

different types of roads for different

types of vehicles in EU Member States

This table makes abstraction from special speed limits for dangerous goods, buses with standing

passengers and specific weather conditions.

* If special equipment ** 90/100 passenger cars, 80/90 light vans, 70/80 vans and light HGVs *** 120 passenger cars, 100 light van, 90 vans and light HGVs

Sources:

For most countries: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/going_abroad/index_en.htm

For the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_speed_limits_in_the_United_Kingdom

For Latvia: http://www.mfa.gov.lv/lv/london/konsulara-informacija/autotransporta-vadisana/

For Ireland:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/roads_and_safety/road_traffic_spee

d_limits_in_ireland.html

For Luxembourg: https://www.tispol.org/guides/luxembourg.pdf

speed limit

(km/h) M1, N1 N2/N3 M2/M3 M1, N1 N2/N3 M2/M3 M1, N1 N2/N3 M2/M3

BE 50 50 50 90 90 75 120 90 90

BG 50 - - 90 - - 130 - -

CZ 50 50 50 90 80 90 130 80 130

DK 50 50 50 80 70 80 130 80 80

DE 50 50 50 100 60/80 60/80

130

recommended 80 80/100*

EE 50 50 50 90 90 90 90 90 90

IE 50 50 50 100 80 80 120 90 100

EL 50 50 50 90 80 80 130/110 85/80 100/90

ES 50 50 50 90/100** 70/80 80/90 120*** 80 90

FR 50 50 50 90 80 90 130/110 90/80 100/90

IT 50 50 50 90

80 (up to 12

tons) and 70

(beyond 12

tons) 80 130

100 (up to 12

tons) and 80

(beyond 12 tons) 100

CY 50 50 50 80 64 80 100 80 100

LV 50 50 50 90 80 90 112 96 112

LT 50 50 50 70/90 70/80 70/80 100/130 80/90 90/100

LU 50 - - 90 - - 130 90 100

HU 50 50 50 90 70 70 130/110 80 80

MT 50 (M1) 40 (N1) 40 40 80 (M1) 60 (N1) 60 60 80(M1) 60 (N1) 60 60

NL 50 50 50 80 80 80 130/120/100 80 100/80

AT 50 50 50 100 70 80 130 80 100

PL 50 50 50 90 70 70 120/140 80 80/100 *

PT 50 50 50 90 80 80 120/100 90/80 100/90

RO 50 50 50 90/100 80/90 80/90 130 110 110

SI 50 50 50 90 90 90 130 90 90/100

SK 50 50 50 90 90 90 90/130 90 90/100

FI 50 50 50 80 80 80

80/100/120

(vans 80 or

100) 80 80/100

SE 50 50 50 70 70 70 110 90 90

UK 32/48 32/48 32/48 97/112 64/80 97/112 112 97 112

urban roads non-urban roads Motorways/expressways


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_speed_limits_in_the_United_Kingdom

http://www.mfa.gov.lv/lv/london/konsulara-informacija/autotransporta-vadisana/

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/roads_and_safety/road_traffic_speed_limits_in_ireland.html

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/roads_and_safety/road_traffic_speed_limits_in_ireland.html

https://www.tispol.org/guides/luxembourg.pdf

163

ANNEX 4: Trends of vehicle stock

Belgium

The opinion of the Federal Public Service Mobility of Belgium is that the correlation between speed

limitation devices and the trend of vehicles’ stock is not known. On the basis of data provided and

elaborated accordingly, N1 vehicles have had a higher growth trend with respect to both N2 and

N3 vehicles. In particular these have been growing since 2002, while N2 and N3 vehicles have been

decreasing. Anyway no particular changes in vehicles’ trend occurred in the period of the Directive

implementation (after 2006).

Also analysing the M vehicles’ trend, no particular shift from heavier to lighter vehicles seems to

occurred after the year 2006. M1 growth trend has been higher with respect to M2, which on the

contrary has been decreasing for the whole period. M1 registers a higher growth trend also with

respect to M3 (with 5 tons<max mass<10 tons) in the period 2000-2007. In 2007-2010 M3 grew

higher than M1 vehicles, but after 2010 they started to decline.

Trend of the stock of vehicles N1, N2, N2 for the years 2000-2012.

Trend of the stock of M vehicles M3 for the years 2000-2012

7580859095

100105110115120125130135140145150

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

N3

N2

N1

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

M3 (5 tons< max mass≤ 10 tons)

M2

M1

164

Bulgaria

According to the governmental contact of Bulgaria responding to the questionnaire no relation

between the implementation of Directive 2002/85/EC and the trend in vehicle stock has been

observed.

Data on M vehicles differentiated per M2/M3 and M1 have been provided. In the following graph

it can be observed that both trends declined in 2006 which is the year of Directive implementation.

Since 2005 the trend of M2/M3 has been lower with respect to M1 trend.

Trend of the stock of vehicles M2/M3 and M1 for the years 2004-2012.

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Coaches – M2, M3

M1

165

Denmark

On the basis of the data provided by the Danish Transport Authorities, no relation between the

implementation of the Speed limiters Directive (in 2005) and the trend in vehicle stock seems to

emerge. N1 vehicles grow at a higher rate with respect both to N3 and N2 vehicles, but no

particular changes seem to occur after the year of the Speed Limiters Directive implementation. No

shift from heavier to lighter vehicles can be observed for M vehicles as well: M2 grow at higher

rates with respect both to M3 and M1 long the whole period.

Trend of the stock of vehicles N3, N2, N1 for the years 2003-2012.

Trend of the stock of vehicles M3 (5 tons< max mass≤ 10 tons), M2, M1 for the years 2003-

2012.

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

N3

N2

N1

707580859095

100105110115120125130135140145150155160165170175180185190

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


M2

M1

166

Finland

According to the governmental contact of Finland responding to the questionnaire no relation

between the implementation of Directive 2002/85/EC and the trend in vehicle stock has been

observed. The data provided by the governmental contact, do not show any relation.

As for good vehicles there can be observed that heavy vehicles (HGVs) have been growing at a

higher rate with respect to lighter vehicles for all the time period.

Trend of HGVs and vans for the years 1999-2012.

As for passenger vehicles similar growth trends can be observed until 2008. After, buses started

growing at a higher rate with respect to passenger cars.

Trend of passenger cars and buses for the years 1999-2012.

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Trucks

Vans

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Passenger cars

Buses

167

France

On the basis of data on commercial vehicles available from the Committee of French auto

manufacturers (Association Prévention routière), the following graph has been elaborated.

Trend of heavy and light commercial vehicles for the years 2000-2011.

Heavy commercial vehicles include vehicles weighing more than 3,5 tons and vehicles weighing

more than 20 tons while light vehicles include commercial vehicles weighing less than 3,5 tons.

As emerges from the graph it seems that no relation between the Directive implementation and

stock of vehicles exists. In fact heavy commercial vehicles have a nearly constant and higher growth

trend with respect to light vehicles which on contrary, after the Directive implementation in 2005,

show a decreasing trend.

80

85

90

95

100

105

2000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

heavy commercial vehicles

light commercial vehicles

168

Ireland

According to the Road Safety Authority (RSA) there are no data which could provide the existence

of a possible relation between the registered stock of vehicles and the implementation of Directive

2002/85/EC which was transposed in 2006.

RSA provided time series data for the period 2000-2011 for M and N vehicles. Nevertheless the

time series for N vehicles seem not to be convincing: the growth rate of N1, N2, N3 are the same

for each year.

Trend of the stock of vehicles N3 , N2, N1 for the years 2000-2011.

Trend of M stock of vehicles for the years 2000-2011.

As for M vehicles, M2 registers the highest growth rate along the period while the M3 registers the

lowest. No particular changes can be observed after 2006 but only a further increase of M2 vehicles

growth rate. Thus no relation seems to emerge.

100105110115120125130135140145150155160165170175180185190

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

N3

N2

N1

100105110115120125130135140145150155160165170175180185190195200205210215220

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

M3 Total

M2

M1

169

Italy

In Italy the implementation of Directive 2002/85/EC seems not to have affected the trend in N

vehicle stock. N1 vehicles have been increasing more than N2 and N3 since 2000 but no particular

changes occurred in 2005, the year of directive implementation. As for M vehicles, no relation

between the Directive and the vehicle trend seems to emerge since M3 vehicles (5 tons< max

mass≤ 10 tons) have been registering a higher growth trend with respect both to M2 and M1since

1999.

Trend of the stock of vehicles N3 , N2, N1 for the years 1999-2011


100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

155

160

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

N3

N2

N1

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


M2

M1

170

Latvia

In Latvia until 2006 N3 and N1 vehicles show nearly the same growth trend, after the growth rate

of N1 becomes clearly higher with respect to N3. For all the period the N2 trend is much lower

with respect to the other two categories. All three vehicle categories show a decrease after 2008.

Trend of N stock of vehicles for the years 2000-2012.

As for M vehicles, the M1 growth rate is always much higher with respect to that of both M2 and

M3.

In both cases a shift from heavier to lighter commercial vehicles could be possible, but no

particolar discontinuities emerge at the time of Directive implementation.


0102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190200

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

N3

N2

N1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


M2

M1

171

Luxembourg

Data for Luxembourg have been provided jointly for N2 and N3 and for N1, jointly for M3 and

M2 and for M1. According to the department of transport of the Ministere du Developpement durable et

des Infrastructures, no impact on the stock of M2/N2 vehicles was noted at the time when the

Directive was implemented (2005). However, the number of N1 vehicles has increased much

quicker then that one of the N2/N3 vehicles, without being known if this asynchronous increase is

linked or not to the speed limiter obligation.

Trend of N stock of vehicles for the years 1999-2012.

As for M vehicles, on the contrary, M2 and M3 increased at a higher rate with respect to light

passenger vehicles.


100105110115120125130135140145150155160165170175180185190195

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

N2+N3

N1

100105110115120125130135140145150155160165170175180

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

M2+M3

M1

172

United Kingdom

In UK N2 and N3 vehicles have a similar trend and both have a much lower growth rate with

respect to N1 vehicles. The gap increases from 2003, two years before the implementation of

Directive on speed limitation devices. Accordingly there could be the possibility of a shift from N2

and N3 vehicles to N1 although no particular changes occurred at the time of the Directive

implementation.

Trend of the N stock of vehicles for the years 1999-2012.

As for M vehicles, M2 shows the highest growth rate while M3 the lowest. The gap between M1

and M3 increases after year 2003 but since the two vehicle categories are not contiguous, it is

difficult to suppose a shift from the heaviest to the lightest vehicle categories. Anyway no

discontinuities at the time of Directive implementation emerge.


90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

N1

N2

N3

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

M1

M2


173

ANNEX 5: Stakeholders workshop

participants

Stakeholder conference for the project “Ex-post evaluation of Directive 92/6/EEC on the

installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the

Community, as amended by Directive 2002/85/EC”

June 10th 2013 13:30h-17:00h

Albert Borschette Conference Centre, 36 rue Froissart, in 1040 Brussels, meeting room AB 1A

List of attendants:

Mr Rob Aarse– Transport en Logistiek Nederland (TLN) Mr Gianfranco Burzio– European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association – ACEA

Mr Oliver Carsten – ETSC and PACTS Ms Silke Conrad – Daimler

Ms Charlotte Creiser – EURALIA Mr Jos Dings – Transport & Environment

Mr Hans Thomas Ebner – Verband der Automobilindustrie e. V. (VDA)

Mr Jonathan El-Nigomi– Nordic Logistics Association

Mr Maxime Flament – ITS Europe and ERTICO Mr Olivier Fontaine – OICA

Mr Bernd Gottselig – Ford of Europe Mrs Tanja Haberzettl– DEKRA e.V.

Mr Nicholas Hodac – Ford of Europe Mr Frederic Keymeulen – UETS (European Road Haulers Association)

Mr Rainer Krautscheid–BASt + BMVBS Ms Katherine Lancaster – UK Department for Transport

Mr Agustín Martín Lasanta– CETM Mr Vincent Legagneur– Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA

Ms Isabelle Maître – French Road Transport Association Mr Jeannot Mersch – FEVR

Mr Fernando Navarro Sordo – CETM Mr Jan Nemec – International Road Transport Union (IRU)

Mr Dirk Saile– Bundesverband Güterverkehr Logistik und Entsorgung (BGL) e.V

Mr William Todts – Transport & Environment

Ms Ellen Townsend – European Transport Safety Council (ETSC)

Mr Stephane Verwilghen – ASECAP

Mr Karim Yahia – ACEA Mr Stephane Dreher – NOKIA/HERE

Mr Rudolf Koronthály (DG MOVE) Mr Roberto Ferravante (DG MOVE)

Mr Casto Lopez Benitez (DG MOVE)

Ms Odile Arbeit de Chalendar (DG MOVE) Mr Peter Broertjes (DG ENTR)

Ms Eef Delhaye (TML) Mr Angelo Martino (TRT)

Mr Huib van Essen (CE Delft) Mr Maarten ‘t Hoen (CE Delft)

174

ANNEX 6: List of ministries/competent

offices, experts and stakeholders

contacted

List of EU ministries/competent offices contacted

Country Institution/Organization

AT Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology, Dept. "Technology and Road Safety

BE Service public federal, Mobilitè et trasports

BE DG Road Transport & Road Safety

Service Regulations vehicles

BG Ministry of Transport, Executive Agency "Automobile Administration"

CY Ministry of Communication and works

CZ Ministry of Transport

DK Ministry of Transport

EE Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications

FI Ministry of Transport

FR Ministère de l'Ecologie, du Développement durable et de l'Energie

DE Ministry of Transport

175

EL Ministry of Infratsructure, transport and networks

HU Ministry of the National Development

IE Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport

IT Ministry of economic development and infrastructure

LV Ministry of Transport

LT Ministry of Transport and Communications

LU Department of transport

MT Ministry for infrastructure, transport and communication

NL Ministry of infrastructure and environment

PL Ministry of Transport, Construction and Maritime Economy

PT Ministry of Economy and development

RO Ministry of transport

SK Ministry of transport, Road transport department

SI Ministry of infrastructure and spatial planning

ES Ministero de Fomento, Direccion de Carreteras

SE Ministry for Infrastructure

UK Secretary of State for transport

List of the members of the high level group on road safety

Country Name Function/Position Institution/Organization e-mail

AT Eva M. Eichinger-Vill

Head of Dept.

Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation

and Technology, Dept. "Technology and Road Safety

[email protected]

AT Alexander

Nowotny

Senior Road Safety

Expert

Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology, Dept. "Technology and Road Safety

[email protected]

t

BE Jean-Paul GAILLY

Directeur général Mobilité et Sécurité Routière [email protected]

BG Anton ANTONOV

Head of Department “Traffic Police”

Ministry of Interior [email protected] ; [email protected]

BG Damyan VLADINOV

Head of Unit “Automated

Information Systems”, Department “Traffic

Police

Ministry of Interior [email protected] ; [email protected]

CZ Roman Budský Head of Road Safety

Department Ministry of Transport of the Czech Republic [email protected]

CZ Jiří Žák Deputy Ministrer Ministry of Transport of the Czech Republic [email protected]

CZ Zuzana Ambrožová

Road Safety Department

Ministry of Transport of the Czech Republic [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]








176

DK Thomas Jørgensen

Head of Division Center for Roads and Bridges Ministry of Transport

[email protected]

EE Sander SALMU Head of Haulage and Traffic Division

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications

[email protected]

FI Kimmo Kiiski Senior Adviser, Doctor of laws

Unit for Transport Safety and the Environment

Ministry of Transport and Communications

[email protected]

FI Mikko Karhunen

Senior Engineer

Unit for Transport Safety and the

Environment Ministry of Transport and Communications

[email protected]

FR Joël Valmain

Conseiller technique

"Europe -

International" du

Délégué

interministériel à la

sécurité routière

Ministère de l'intérieur, de l'Outre-mer, des

collectivités territoriales et de l'immigration [email protected]

DE Martin Friewald Head of Road Traffic subdivision

Unit for Transport Safety and the Environment

Ministry of Trasnport and Communications

[email protected]

DE Nikolaos Drougias

Head of Road Safety Unit

Unit for Transport Safety and the

Environment Ministry of Trasnport and Communications

[email protected]

EE Sander SALMU Head of Haulage and Traffic Division

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications

[email protected]

HU András

SZÉKELY :

Ministry of National Development, Department for Road and Rail Transport

Regulation, Unit of Road Transport and Logistics

[email protected]

IE Noel Brett Chief Executive Officer

Road Safety Authority [email protected]

IE Michael Brosnan Research Manager Road Safety Authority [email protected]

IT Sergio DONDOLINI

Director general on Road Safety

Ministry of Transport [email protected]

IT Antonio ERARIO

Head of Division, International

Regulatory Affairs

Ministry of Transport [email protected]

LV Andris Lubāns Director of Land

Transport Department Ministry of Transport and Communications [email protected]

LV Māris Pēkalis

Deputy Director of

Land Transport department

Ministry of Transport and Communications [email protected]

LT Vidmantas Pumputis

Head of Traffic Safety Division

Ministry of Transport and Communications Road and Civil Aviation Department

[email protected]

LU Josiane PAULY, Conseiller de Direction Ministère du Développement durable et des

Infrastructures [email protected]

LU Alain DISIVISCOUR

Attaché de

Gouvernement 1er en

rang a

Ministère du Développement durable et des





















177

LU Guy HEINTZ Inspecteur principal 1er en rang

Ministère du Développement durable et des


NL Marij Philippens Head of Road Safety Unit

Directorate for Roads and Road safety

Directorate Mobility Ministry of Infrastructure and the

Environment

[email protected]

PL Maciej Mosiej

Advisor to the Minister

for Transport, Secretary of the

National Road Safety Council

Ministry of Transport, Construction and Maritime Economy

[email protected]

PL Konrad Romik

Chief Expert . Secretariat of the

National Road Safety Council

Ministry of Transport, Construction and

Maritime Economy

Romik Konrad

<[email protected]>

PT : : Mininstry of transport, Road Department [email protected]

PT Jorge Jacob President Autoridade Nacional de Segurança Rodoviária (ANSR)

[email protected]

RO Mr. Lucian Dinita

Director,

Traffic Police Directorate Ministry of Internal Affaires [email protected];

[email protected]

RO Mr. Costin TĂTUC

Deputy Director

Traffic Police Directorate Ministry of Internal Affaires [email protected]

ES María Seguí Gómez

Director General Dirección General de tráfico - Ministerio del Interior

[email protected]

ES Carmen Girón Head of International Affairs Division

Dirección General de tráfico - Ministerio del Interior

[email protected]

SE Mr. Björn Stafbom

Head Of Section Ministry of Enterprise [email protected]

UK Jessica Mathew : Department of Transport [email protected]

UK Cartriona Henderson

: Department of Transport [email protected]

UK Elizabeth Shovelton

: Department of Transport [email protected]

List of CARE Experts (EU countries)

Country Name e-mail

AT Christian Brandstaetter [email protected]

BE Yvan Casteels [email protected]

BE Juan Roque-Ramirez [email protected]

BE Bruno Kestemont [email protected]

BE Roland Nardi [email protected]

BG Hubi [email protected]



















178

BG D. Vladinov [email protected]

CY I. Manoli [email protected]

CZ Olga Kastlova [email protected]

DE Ingerborg Vorndran [email protected]

DE Schepers [email protected]

DE Ierner [email protected]

DK [email protected]



EE Sirje Lilleorg [email protected]

EE Maria Pashkevich [email protected]

ES Pzori [email protected]

ES Mao Campo [email protected]

FI Auli Forsberg [email protected]

FI Anders Granfelt [email protected]

FI Mari Niemi [email protected]

FI Mari Tormanen [email protected]

FI Ritva Tikkanen [email protected]

FR Manuelle Salathe [email protected]

FR Christian Machu [email protected]

FR Guillaume Tremblin [email protected]

EL [email protected]

EL Yannis [email protected]

EL Petros Evgenikos [email protected]



HU Eva Csapo [email protected]

HU Peter Hollo [email protected]

HU Laszlo Pelikan [email protected]

HU Sipos Tibor [email protected]

IE Michael Brosnan [email protected]

IE Yaw Bimpeh [email protected]

IT Bruzzone [email protected]



























179

IT Broccoli [email protected]

LT Gintaras Aliksandravicius [email protected]

LT Zita Serafiniene [email protected]

LU Marie-jo Airoldi [email protected]

LU Liliane Reichmann [email protected]

LV Aldis Lama [email protected]

MT Audrey Testaferrata [email protected]

MT Andrew Haig [email protected]

NL Peter Mark [email protected]

PL Anna Zielinska [email protected]

PL Ilona Buttler [email protected]

PT Clemente [email protected]

RO Manrian Zane [email protected]

SE Johan Strandroth [email protected]

SE Maria Melkersson [email protected]

SI Andraz Murkovic [email protected]

SI Vesna Marinko [email protected]

SK Lubomir Durina [email protected]

SK Machnik [email protected]

UK Anil Bhagat [email protected]

UK Daryl lloyd [email protected]

UK Pat Kilbey [email protected]

List of the stakeholders

Country Name

PSA Peugeot-Citroen

MAN

Ford

FIAT-CHRYSLER

TOYOTA

CONTINENTAL

Bosch

DENSO International Europe


mailto:[email protected]'









180

Light Sight Safety Initiative

Koch Consulting

Mobileye

ADAS-Management Consulting

Delphi

AUTOLIV

BE Attaché - Policy Unit Road transport and road safety

BE Belgian Road Safety Institute

BE Transport & Logistieks Vlaanderen

CH BFU-Swiss Council for Accident Prevention

CZ DEKRA Automobila

DE Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung

DE German Road Safety Council

DE Verband der Automobilindustrie

DK Ministry of Transport. Center for Veje og Broer

DK Nordic Traffic Safety Council

DK,NO,SE Nordic Logistics Association

EL Centre for Research and Technology Hellas / Hellenic Institute of Transport

ES Permanent Representation

ES CETM-Confederación Española de Transporte de Mercancías

ES CNAE-Spanish Confederation of Driving Schools

EU European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA)

EU ACEM-Motorcycle Industry in Europe

EU CLEPA- European Association of Automobile Suppliers

EU FEMA- The Federation of European Motorcyclists' Associations

EU ECF- European Cyclist Federation

EU FEVR- European Federation of Road Traffic Victims

EU ERTICO- Intelligent Transport Systems and Services for Europe

EU ETSC- European Transport Safety Council

EU ASECAP- European Association with tolled motorways, bridges and tunnels

EU EuroNCAP-European New Car Assessment Programme

EU UNECE- United Nations - Economic Commission for Europe

EU EARPA- European Automotive Research Partners Association

181

EU ECTRI- European Conference Transport Research Institutes

EU ETRMA-European Tyre & Rubber Manufacturers’ Association

EU Transport& Environment

EU ETF-European Transport Workers Federation

EU ECR - Euro Control Route

EU CEA-Insurance Europe

EU UETR European Road Hauliers Associacion

FI Finnish Transport Safety Agency

FR Association Prévention routiere

FR Laboratoire Interactions Véhicules-Infrastructure-Conducteurs

HR MP Educon

HU KTI Institute for Transport Sciences Non Profit Ltd.

IT Centro di Ricerca per il Trasporto e la Logistica

IT DEKRA Automotive Italy

IT Fondazione ANIA per la sicurezza stradale

NL Rijkswaterstaat Centre for Transport and Navigation Safety

NL Business Europe

NL SWOV – Dutch Transport Safety Research Organisations

NO Norwegian Public Roads Administration

SE The Swedish Transport Agency

SE Swedish Transport Administration

SE NTF-Swedish National Society for Road Safety

SI Slovenian Traffic Safety Agency

UK ITS Leeds

UK UK Parliamentary Advisory Council

World International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA)

World FIA- Fédération Internationale de l'automobile

World FIM- Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme

World IRU-International road transport union

World CORTE

World UICR-International Union of Professional Drivers

182

ANNEX 7: Implementation of the speed

limitation directive and enforcement of

checks

Implementation of the speed limitation Directive

Country Implementation

BE

Directive 92/6/EEC was transposed through the Royal Decree of 15 March 1995.

Directive 2002/85/EC was transposed through the Royal Decree of 15 March 2006.

BG The requirements of the Speed Limitation Directive are transposed in Bulgarian Road Transport Law and Ordinance No 13 regarding the requirements for the obligatory use of speed limitation devices which are fitted in the motor vehicles.

DK Danish law (Road Traffic Act and Parliamentary regulation of vehicle design and equipment)

EE

The rules of the Speed Limitation Directive are enforced with the Estonian Road Traffic Act (adopted on 17.03.2011, RT I

2010, 44, 261) and the Regulation of the Ministry Economic Affairs and Communications of 2 November 2010 nr 94 on the requirements for the installation of speed limitation devices and the control of the conditions and procedures for use of

speed limitation devices (RT I, 29.12.2010, 115)

EL

The Speed Limitation Directive,

was introduced in the national law with the Ministerial Decision No. 39622/3313/1992 (GG issue No. B’ 639)

was supplemented by theMinisterial Decision No. 5400/399/1995 (GG issue No. B’ 142)

and was amended by theMinisterial Decision No. 39184/2034/2004 (GG issue No. B’ 1336)

HU The Speed Limitation Directive is enforced byRegulation N6 from 1990 of the minister of environment, communication and transport. It includes relevant prescriptions on speed limitation devices.

IE

The Speed limitation Directive is implemented by the Statutory Instruments

S.I. No. 831/2005 — European Communities (Installation and Use of Speed Limitation Devices in Motor

Vehicles) Regulations 2005

S.I. No. 339/2006 — European Communities (Installation and use of Speed Limitation Devices in Motor

Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations 2006

IT The Speed limitation Directive is implemented through the Decreto Ministeriale 19 novembre 2004 (G.U. n. 50 del

2.3.2005) and the Circular n. 5520/M361 of 25.03.2005, dealing with both new vehicles and retrofitting of in use vehicles.

LI The rules of the Speed Limitation Directive are enforced via national legislative acts. Thesenational rules cover installation of speed limitation devices and roadworthiness.

LU

Arrêté grand-ducal du 16/12/1992. Mémorial Grand-Ducal B

Règlement grand-ducal du 13 janvier 2005 modifianta) l’arrêté grand-ducal modifié du 23 novembre 1955

portant règlement de la circulation sur toutes les voies publiques;b) le règlement grand-ducal modifié du 27

janvier 2001 fixant les modalités de fonctionnement d’un système de contrôle technique des véhicules

routiers;c) le règlement grand-ducal modifié du 17 juin 2003 relatif à l’identification des véhicules routiers, à

leurs plaques d’immatriculation et aux modalités d’attribution de leurs numérosd’immatriculation

LV

The Directive has been implemented through the document "Requirements for vehicles to be equipped with a speed-

limiting devices and the procedures for using them", adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers of Latvia on the 23rd of December 2002.

PO Provisions of Directive 92/6/EEC as amended can be found in Polish Road Traffic Act (art. 66 par. 1a, 1b, 1c).

RO

The legal framework for implementing the mandatory installation of the speed limitation devices was established in 2003 by the Government Decision no. 899/2003 on the implementation of the conditions on the type approval of the control

device in the road transport, on authorizing the speed limitations devices, as well as on the conditions of installation, calibration, adjustment and testing of the control devices in road transport and speed limitation devices.

The following regulations represent the legal framework for putting into practice those provisions, as well as the control on the installation and use of the speed limitation devices:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2005/en/si/0831.html




183

- The regulations on the installation, calibration and testing of the tachographs and the speed limitation devices,

as well as on licensing of the economic operators performing these activities – RNTR 8, approved by the Order no. 181/2008 of the Minister of Transport;

- The regulations on technical conditions that road vehicles must meet, so as to be allowed to roll on the public roads in Romania RNTR 2, approved by the Order no. 211/2003 of Minister of Public Works, Transport and

Housing, as amended; - The regulations on the individual approval, of identity cards and the certification of the road vehicles,

authenticity – RNTR 7, approved by the Order no. 2132/2005 of the Minister of Transport, Construction and Tourism, as amended;

- The regulations on the certification of the compliance of the registered road vehicles with the technical regulations on road traffic safety, the environment protection and the use according to the destination – RNTR

1, approved by the Order no. 2133/2005 of the Minister of Transport, Construction and Tourism, as amended. - Government Ordinance no. 27/2011 on road transport;

- Government Decision no. 69/2012 establishing infringements and sanctions for breaking of provisions of Regulations (EC) no. 1071/2009, 1072/2009, 1073/2009 and Government Ordinance no 27/2011.

SK The Speed Limitation Directive is implemented by the Regulation of Slovak Government No. 153/2006 and No. 154/2006.

UK The domestic legislation implementing the directive on speed limitation devices is: SI 2004/2102 The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2004

Sources: Questionnaires Replies; for LU and UK: eur-lex.europa.eu/

Frequency of Checks on vehicles' compliance with the Speed Limitation

Directive and enforcement of relevant rules

Country Frequency of checks on vehicle

compliance Enforcement of Directive rules

AT Every 2 years Compliance to Directive rules is verified through technical roadside inspections

BE Every two years

The test on speed limiters can be done through an analogue speedometer or a digital speedometer. In the first case the analogue speedometer measure the

set speed twice while the digital speedometer measure the set speed by maintaining this for more than a minute.

An inspection plaque that self-destructs if an attempt is made to remove it, is affixed to a component of the vehicle that cannot be replaced during use. The inspection plaque shows the heading “inspection of the speed limitation

device”, the name, address and the registration number of the fitter, the date of inspection and the set speed.

BG Every 2 years The enforcement of the rules of this directive are verifiedduring the periodic technical inspections and roadside checks by competent control authorities

DK Every year

EE Every year

The enforcement of rules are verified during the periodic roadworthiness tests

for motor vehicles and their trailers (according Directive 2009/40/EC).and during the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial

vehicles (according Directive 2000/30/EC).

Checks on the maximum speed used for speed limiters for heavy vehicles and buses is assessed through a test on the calibration of speed limitation device.

FI

Every year

During technical inspections, the Calibration

certificate is required.

Compliance with Directive rules is verified through traffic checks carried out by the police

EL

-Every year : visual inspection (of the speed

limiter) is carried out during the periodical verification of M3, N3, M2, N2 vehicles,

according to Directive 2009/40/EC.

- Visual inspection (of the speed limiter) is carried out during the technical roadside

inspections of M3, N3, M2, N2 vehicles,

184

according to Directive 2000/30/EC.

HU Every year The test to check the maximum speed used for speed limiters is performed by an authorized specialized workshop which issues a certificate for the vehicle.

This certificate is valid for two years.

IE Every year

Enforcement of the Speed Limitation Directive is achieved through a combination of a speed limiter check at a vehicle’s annual roadworthiness test,

coupled with checks carried out by RSA Vehicle Inspectors / National Police Force at the roadside.

IT Every year

Compliance with the Speed limitation Directive provisions is verified through the periodicaltechnical inspection (PTI) of M2, M3, N2, N3 vehicles which is

yearly carried out . During PTI the integrity of the speed limiter seals are checked. Random speed police control are performed on the road.

Vehicles subject to speed limiters are tested and calibrated on rolling benches in technical centrethat are authorized by the Italian Ministry. The signal to the

speed limiter is mechanically sealed in order to avoid manipulation

LI Every two years

LU

Every two years in relation with the bi-

annual calibration of the tachograph

Enforcement is ensured through speed controls by the Police on the roads and during the periodical technical inspection of the vehicles( i.e. every 6 months

for all vehicles > 3.5 t)

The max. speedof the speed limiters is tested at the first installation of the speed limiter by the authorised workshops.

LV Every year

PO

Inspections on N2 and N3 vehicles are

carried out by Automobile Inspection Stations every year while inspections on M2

and M3 vehicles are carried out after one year at first and after , checks are carried out

every two years.

Speed limiters are checked as a part of periodic roadworthiness checks and during road side check if it’s possible. If vehicle is recorded with on board speed camera exceeding allowed limitation vehicle might be directed to appropriate workshop to check speed limiter.

RO Every two years, during the periodical checks.

The inspections regarding the compliance with the legal regulations in force,

on the installation of the speed limitation devices on vehicles are performed as follows:

- Before the admission to public road circulation of the authorized

road vehicles;

- After the vehicles’ registration relating on the periodical technical inspection;

- At the initial check of the speed limitation devices as soon as they are installed;

- Every two years, after the installation of the speed limitation devices, during the periodical checks;

- Whenever it’s in use, during the inspections performed by the enforcement authorities

SK Every year

UK

Whenever vehicles are checked at the roadside

Enforcement is ensured through roadside checks of vehicles and regular visits to calibration centres to ensure standards are maintained in accordance with

the Regulations

Specific checks on speed limits set for speed limiters are carried out through

tachograph records and automatic speed measurement devices to help identify compliance

185

ANNEX 8: Studies on speed limitation

devices and relevant impacts suggested

by governmental contacts and

stakeholders

Studies on the impacts of speed limitation devices on average speeds and

speed profiles.

Stakeholder Studies Dimension

Centro di ricerca sui trasporti e la

logistica

VárhelyA., Mäkinen T., 2001, The effects of in-car speed limiters: field studies, Elsevier, Transportation Research, Part C 9 (2001) 191-211

European

Studies on the impacts of speed limitation devices on emissions


Centro di ricerca

sui trasporti e la logistica

Transport Canada, 2008, , Speed Limiter Case study and Industry Review, prepared by Knowles

Canada.

National

(Canada)

ITS Leeds Carslaw D. C., Goodman P.S., Lai F.C.H., Carsten O.M.J., 2010, Comprehensive analysis of the carbon impacts of vehicle intelligent speed control, Elsevier.

CETM

Treatise Training in Environmental Transport, 2005, La Conducción Eficiente, un nuevo estile

de conducción que logra importantes ahorros de carburante, reducción de emisiones y que

mejora le seguridad de la conducción.

National (Spanish)

European Cyclists’ Federation

European Federation for Transport and Environment, 2005, Road Transport speed and climate change.

European

Kellera J., Andreani-Aksoyoglua S., Tinguelya M., Flemmingb J., Heldstabc J., Kellerc M., Zbindend R., Prevot A., 2008, The impact of reducing the maximum speed limit on motorways

in Switzerland to 80 km h-1 on emissions and peak ozone, Environmental Modelling & Software.

National

(Switzerland)

Smita R., Poelmanb M. and Schrijver J., 2008, Improved road traffic emission inventories by

adding mean speed distributions, Atmospheric Environment Simulations

Panis L. , Broekx D. ; Beckx C. , 2006, Impact of 30 km/h zone introduction on vehicle exhaust emissions in urban areas, London Association for European Transport.

(http://uhdspace.uhasselt.be/dspace/bitstream/1942/1366/1/impact%20of%2030.pdf)

National

(Belgium)

Wang Z., Walton C., 2006, An Investigation on the Environmental Benefits of a Variable Speed

Control Strategy.

International

186

Thomas R., 2006, Assessing the benefits of options to improve the UK's air quality. Local transport today ltd. United Kingdom

National (UK)

van Beek W., Derriks H., Wilbers P., Morsink P., Wismans L., van Beek P., The effects of speed measures on air pollution and traffic safety

-

Olde M.J.T., Van Beek P., StemerdingM.P., HavermansP.F., 2005, Reducing speed limits on

highways: Dutch experiences and impact on air pollution, noise-level, traffic safety and traffic flow, London Association for European Transport.

National (Netherlands)

Cameron M., Potential benefits and costs of speed changes on rural roads

National (Australia)

Sucharov L.J. , Brebbia C.A., BenitezF., Veurman J., Gense N.L.J., Wilmink I.R., Baarbe H.I, Emissions at different conditions of traffic flow, Wit Press Ashurst Lodge, Ashurst Southampton, United Kingdom.


Federal Environmental Agency, 2003, Reducing CO2 emissions in the transport sector . A

status report by the Federal Environmental Agency -A description of measuresand update of potentials

Language of the document: English

-

Mao-B, Chen-H, Chen-S, 2002, Sustainability assessment of speed regulation of urban traffic, International association of traffic and safety sciences, 6-20, 2-chome yaesu, chuo-ku, tokyo 104-

0028, Japan

National (Japan)

Haworth N., Symmons M., 2001, The relationship between fuel economy and safety outcomes, Monash University. accident research centre (muarc), Australia

-

Haworth N., Symmons M., 2001, Driving to reduce fuel consumption and improve road safety, Monash University, Victoria, Australia

-

Taylor M., Dyson C.B., Woolley J.E. , 2001, Lower urban speed limits: trading off safety, mobility and environmental impact, Tasmania, Department of infrastructure, energy and

resources, Australia

National

(Australia)

Taylor M. , 2000, Network modelling of the traffic, environmental and energy effects of lower urban speed limits, ARRB Transport Research LTD, Victoria, Australia

-

EH Pechan and Associates, 1997, The effects of raising speed limits on motor vehicle emissions.

National

(UK)

187

Mullen M.A., Wilson JH Jr , Gottsman L., Schroeer W.L., 1997, Emissions impact of

eliminating national speed limits: one year later.

National (USA)

Emissions Impact of Elimination of the National 55 mph Speed Limit 01.08.96 National (USA)

Wernsperger F., Sammer G., 1995, Results of the scientific investigation accompanying the

pilot trial of 30 kph limit in side streets and 50 kph limit in priority streets, PTRC Education and Research Services LTD, United Kingdom.

Language of the document: English

National (Austria)

Sammer G., 1994, General 30 kph speed limit in the city: the results of a model project inthe city of Graz , Transportation Research Institute, Technion-israel institute, Technion city, Haifa,

32000, Israel

National

(Austria)

Davis A., 1994, Speed: a human and planetary health hazard, Royal Society for the prevention of accidents (ROSPA), United Kingdom

-

Fergusson M., 1994, Communications. the effect of vehicle speeds on emissions, Butterworth-

heinemann ltd, United Kingdom.

National

(UK)

Joergensen C.H., Krawack S., Soerensen M.M., Therkelsen H., 1993, Transport planning and policy: the Danish experience

National (Denmark)

World Wide Funf for Nature, Friends of the earth, 1992, The effect of vehiclespeed on emissions. an update, Earth resources research, United Kingdom

National

(UK)

Den-Tonkelaar-Wam , 1991, Calculation of the optimal driving speed of cars and lorries (minimal emissions and fuel consumption) on highways with different speed limits, tno

milieuwe tenschappen tno, Netherlands

Language of the document: Dutch


Den-Tonkelaa R-Wam, 1991, Speed limits, effects and benefits in terms of energy efficiency and reduction of emissions, Elsevier science publishers , Amsterdam, Netherlands


Howard D, TRANSNET, 1991, Reducing carbon dioxide from transport: a costed strategy,

Green Party, London, United Kingdom

National

(UK)

TRANSPORTRAADET , 1990, Traffic, energy and carbon dioxide. strategies for the reduction of fuel consumption and exhaust emissions, Solna, Sweden

Language of the document: Swedish

National

(Sweden)

188

Thunberg B, Hammarstroem U., Karlsson B., Moelle R.S. , Perby H.,1990, Title: traffic and exhaust emissions - A Forecast up t the year 2015. calculation of emissions on the basis of

different assumptions, Statens Vaeg och trafikinstitut, Linkoeping, Sweden.

Language of the document: Swedish

National (Sweden)

Den-Tonkelaar-Wam , 1987, The Introduction of a new policy of speed limits on motorways on the emission of air polluting materials, Nederlandse organisatie voor

toegepast natuurwe tenschappelijk onderzoek Tno, Delft, Netherlands.

Language of the document: Dutch

National

(Netherlands)

Transport &

Environment

De Vlieger I.,. Schrooten L, Pelkmans L., Panis L., 2005, 80 km/h maatregel voor vrachtwagens Wetenschappelijke screening van het effect op de uitstoot van CO2 en schadelijke emissies

-

Rexeis M., Hausberger S., Heinz S., 2011, Lkw-Tempolimits und Emissionen, Auswirkungen der

Einhaltung der Lkw-Tempolimits auf Autobahnen auf Emissionen und Lär -

National research Council of the National Acadamies, 2010, Technologies and approaches to reducing the fuel consumption of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, Washington, D.C.

National (U.S.A.)

Transport & Environment, 2011, How clean are Europe’s cars? An analysis of carmaker

progress towards EU CO2 targets in 2010 European

Transport & Environment, 2011, Q&A - EU transport spending: The ‘Cohesion’ fund and

‘Connecting Europe Facility’ European

Transport & Environment, 2012, Briefing: Biofuels and ILUC European

Transport & Environment, 2012, Briefing: Implementing the FQD European

Studies on the impacts of speed limitation devices on road safety

Country /stakeholder

Studies

SK

National plan for road safety increasing focused for second half of the year 2005 with the perspective to the year 2010 as approved by government decree No. 391/2005 dated on May

18th , 2005

National

(Slovakia)

Road safety enhancement strategy in the Slovak Republic in the years 2011 to 2020 as approved by government decree No. 798/2011 dated on December 14th , 2011

National (Slovakia)

UK

Bishop R., Murray D.C., MC Donald W., Hickman J., Bergoffen G., 2008, CTBSSP Synthesis 16, Safety Impacts of Speed Limiter Device Installations on Commercial Trucks and Buses,

Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C. International

Centro di ricerca

sui trasporti e la logistica

Paine M., Paine D., Faulks D., Speed Limiting Trials in Australia, National

(Australia)

European Cyclists’ Federation

FKA Automotive research, 2012, Safer Cleaner, How small changes to lorry design can make a big difference, Transport & Environment

European

Den Boer E., Brouwer F., Smokers R., Verbeek M., 2010, Speed limiters for Vans in Europe, Environmental and safety impacts, CE Delft.

European

Hanowski R., Research on the safety impacts of speed limiter device installations on commercial motor vehicles, Virginia Tech Transport Institute

U.S. Department o transportation, Federal Motor CarrierSafety Administration, 2012, Research on the Safety Impacts of Speed Limiter Device Installations on Commercial Motor Vehicles: Phase II

International

189

Ceder A.,The Effect of Installing Speed Limiter on the Amount and Severity of Interurban Road Accidents, the Ran Naor Foundation.

National (Israel)

Transport Canada, 2008, Learning from Others: An International Study on Heavy Truck Speed Limiters

International

ETSC-European Transport Safety

Council

ETSC, Knowledge for Leadership-The Road Safety performance Index, Assessing Road Safety performance across Europe, PIN Flash N.16, Tackling the three main killers on the

roads, A priority for the forthcoming EU Road safety Action Programme, Brussels.

European

ETSC, 2008, “Road Safety as a right and responsibility for all” A Blueprint for the EU’s 4th

Road Safety Action Programme 2010-2020, Brussels European

ETSC, 2012, ETSC’s Contribution to CARS 21 WP1 on Road Safety, Brussels European

Somcic G., Townsend E., 2008, Managing Speed Towards Safe and Sustainable Road Transport, ETSC, Brussels

European

ETSC, 2011, PRAISE”: Preventing Road Accidents and Injuries for the Safety of Employees, Driving for Work: Managing speed, Brussels

European

Trafikverket, Swedish transport Administration

Elvik R., 2009, The Power Model of the relationship between speed and road safety, Update an new analysis, Institute of transport Economics, Norwegian Centre for Transport Research, Oslo

National

(Sweden)

VDA Verband de Automobilindustrie

BAST, DEKRA, UDV, VDA, 2013, Project Report Safety of Light Commercial Vehicles, VDA-Verband de Automobilindustrie, Berlin

National (Germany)

FORD International Transport Forum, IRTAD, Road Safety Annual Report 2013 International

Transport &

Environment

Smith T., Knight I., Analysis of accidents involving light commercial vehicles in the UK

National (UK)

Varhelyi A., Makinen T., 2000, The effects of in-car speed limiters: field studies, transportation Research. Elsevier.

European

De Mol J., Vlassenroot S., En Georges A., Abnormaal veel ongevallen met bestelwagens European

Studies on ISA systems provided by stakeholders


Centro di ricerca sui trasporti e la

logistica

Servin O., Boriboonsomsin K., Barth M., 2006, An Energy and Emissions Impact Evaluation of Intelligent Speed Adaptation,

ITS Leeds Lai F., Carsten O., Tate F., 2011, How much benefit does Intelligent Speed Adaptation

deliver: An analysis of its potential contribution to safety and environment, Elsevier. National (UK)

CETM FTSA- Fundación Instituto Tecnológico, 2007, Descripción y evidencia scientíficas de la

eficacia del Control inteligente de velocidad

Belgian Road Safety Institute

Carsten O., Fowkes M., Lai F., Chorlton K., Jamson S., Tate F. , Simpkin B., 2008, ISA-UK

Intelligent Speed Adaptation, Final Report, University of Leeds, National (UK)

Biding T., Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA), Results of large-scale trials in Borlänge, Lidköping, Lund and Umeå during the period 1999-2002

National (Sweden)

ETSC-European Transport Safety

Council

Goodwin F., Achterberg F., Beckmann J., 2006, Intelligent Speed Assistance, Myths and Reality, ETSC position on ISA, ETSC, Brussels

European

Kullgren A., Stigson H., Achterberg F., Townsend E., 2005, In-Car Enforcement Technologies today, ETSC, Brussels

European

FEVR European Federation of Road

Traffic Victims

Carsten O., Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) as an Alternative Sanction, University of Leeds, Road Safety Authority , International Conference on recidivist behavior and drivers

rehabilitation programmes.

National (UK)

190

Transport &Environment

Carsten O., Lai F., Chorlton K.,Goodman P., Carslaw D., Hess S., 2008, Speed Limit Adherence and its effect on Road Safety and Climate Change, University of Leeds.

Norwegian Public Roads

Administration

Vaa, T. Assum, T., Elvik, R. (2012): Driver support systems: Estimating road safety effects at varying levels of implementation. TOI report 1202/2012.

191

ANNEX 9: National policies/measures

with significant impacts on emissions and

road safety

National policies/measures with significant impacts on emissions,

implemented since 2002

Country National policies/measures

EE Introduction of gas vehicles : gas buses for public transport.

EL Circulation ban for heavy vehicles on national roads on rush days and hours in the directions of entrance to and exit from big cities

HU

Ban of HGV traffic during weekends

General prohibition of overtaking of HGV’s since 1st January 2011. (Highway Code)

IT

Promotion of cleaner vehicles like EVs and NGVs.

Local specific measure for traffic restrictions.

SK

Transport policy of Slovak Republic till the end of year 2015 as approved by the government decree No. 445 dated on

June 8th. 2005

Strategy of transport development in Slovak Republic till the year 2020 as approved by government decree No. 158 dated on March 3rd. 2010

Program for development of intelligent transport systems named National system of transport information as approved by government decree No. 22 dated on January 14th. 2009

National policies/measures with significant impacts on road safety,

implemented since 2002, provided by ministerial contacts

Country National Policies/measures with significant impacts on road safety

DK

Mandatory control of mirror adjustment (Road traffic Act)

Overtaking prohibited on motorways on certain times or distances (Danish Road Legislation)

Road construction to avoid “black spots”

EL

Circulation ban for heavy vehicles on national roads on rush days and hours in the directions of entrance to and exit from big cities

Traffic Code

Law No. 3446/2006

Ministerial Decision No. 28366/2098/2006 on the classification of certain categories of used vehicles using an ABS

HU

Ban of HGV traffic during weekends

General prohibition of overtaking for HGV’s

192

IE

Safety belts on buses (S.I. No. 367/2011 — Road Traffic (Restraint Systems in Organised Transport of Children) Regulations 2011)100:

Since 31 October 2010 all bus owners, have been required to present certification at their vehicle’s roadworthiness test showing that the safety belts fitted to the vehicle are of an acceptable standard.

Furthermore regulations were introduced in October 2011 making it a legal requirement that all buses involved in the organised transport of children must be fitted with appropriate and fit for purpose safety belts or restraint systems.

Organised transport in this regard is a group of 3 or more children undertaking a journey where the children’s transport is

the primary reason for the journey. This includes school transport bus services, school trips or other organised outings such as sporting or social events, etc. The organised transport of children does not include the transport of children on

bus services offered to the general public (i.e. scheduled urban or inter-urban bus services)

Maximum weights (Statutory Instrument No. 43 of 2013)101:

From 1st April 2013, six axle articulated vehicle combinations have been permitted to operate at a gross combination

weight of 46 tonnes, provided they satisfy the requirements of an ‘appropriate motor vehicle’ and ‘appropriate semi-trailer’ respectively; and conform to the following standards:

Tractor units and semi-trailers already in service will require Electronic Braking Systems (EBS). Anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS) are not sufficient.

New tractor units first registered on or after 1st April 2013 (in addition to requiring EBS) will also need

Vehicle Stability Function (VSF) which is more commonly known as Electronic Stability Control (ESC). Semi-trailers first licensed on or after 1st April 2013 (in addition to requiring EBS) will also need to have Roll

Stability Control (RSC).

RO

Implementation and enforcement of provision of social legislation (AETR Agreement) even for national transport

operations

Implementation and enforcement of professional training of drivers of HGV and PSV

Implementation and enforcement of legislation on transport of dangerous goods (ADR Agreement) even for national transport operations

IT Several information campaign were performed to increase awareness and train professional drivers.

SK

Road safety enhancement strategy in the Slovak Republic in the years 2002 to 2010

Road safety enhancement strategy in the Slovak Republic in the years 2011 to 2020

UK

In 2002, the government seeks views on banning mobile phones whilst driving. £6 million was made available to improve

road safety in most deprived cities. A new motorcycle safety campaign is launched, as is a campaign urging parents to check their child’s car seat every trip.

In December 2003 the new offence of using a hand held mobile phone while driving is introduced. Seatbelt campaign THINK! Wear a seatbelt....You don’t get a second chancefeatures an online interactive crash simulator. Radio drink driving campaign timed to coincide with early morning pub opening during Rugby Union World Cup.Congestion

Charging introduced in London.

In 2004, the first three year review of the Government's road safety strategy is published.

In 2005, the Roads Policing Strategy published jointly by Dept for Transport, Home Office and Association of Chief Police Officers. The police are given the power to seize uninsured vehicles being driven on the road - those which are not

reclaimed may be sold off or crushed.

In 2006, the Road Safety Act passed. The act made provision for a wide range of road safety matters including: drink

driving, speeding, driver training, driver and vehicle licensing.

In 2007, the new THINK! drink-drive advert launched, emphasising the consequences of a drink-drive conviction.

In 2008, Learning to Drive consultation, reforming car driver training and testing, published.

100http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Your-Vehicle/Vehicle-Standards/Components/Safety-Belts-on-Buses/ 101http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Your-Vehicle/Vehicle-Standards/Weights--Dimensions-/46-tonne-weight-limit/

193

Driver Certificate of Professional Competence (DCPC) was introduced for bus and coach

drivers.

In 2009, the first national THINK! campaign about drug driving launched. The department introduced Road Casualties

Online to its website, a web based tool which allows members of the public to perform their own analysis and examination of Reported Road Accident Statistics. Driver Certificate of Professional Competence (DCPC) was

introduced for lorries.

In 2010, the Government-commissioned independent North Review of drink and drug driving published. Specific

funding for safety cameras abolished and local safety funding mainstreamed. Significant changes to practical car tests with ‘independent driving’ introduced. Driver Certificate of Professional Competence (DCPC) was introduced for lorry

drivers. National Driver and Rider Standards published.

In 2011, the Strategic Framework for Road Safety was published, setting out the

Government’s approach to continuing to reduce killed and seriously injured casualties on Britain’s roads. Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE) scheme introduced making it an offence to keep any vehicle which has no valid insurance

unless a valid Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) declaration has been made to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA). National Driver and Rider Training Standards published

194

ANNEX 10: Availability of quantitative

data

Stock of vehicles

Type of data on the stock of vehicles per country provided

Country Time series Vehicle categorization

AT 2008-2012 M1, M2+M3, N1, N2, N3.

BE 2000-2012 M3 , M3 (5 tons< max mass≤ 10 tons),, M2, M1, N3, N2, N1

BG 2004-2012 Coaches (M2- M3); Heavy vehicles (N1- N2- N3); Traction vehicle (N3)

DE 2001-2012 Cars, campers, buses, trucks, semitrailers.

DK 2003-2012 M3 (max mass>10 tons; 5 tons< max mass≤ 10 tons),, M2, M1, N3, N2, N1

EE 2009-2012 M3 (max mass>10 tons; 5 tons< max mass≤ 10 tons),, M2, M1, N3, N2, N1

FI

1999-2012 Passenger cars, Trucks, Vans, Buses

2011-2012 M3 (max mass>10 tons; 5 tons< max mass≤ 10 tons), M2, M1, N3, N2, N1

EL 2007-2012 M3 (max mass>10 tons; 5 tons< max mass≤ 10 tons), M2, M1, N3, N2, N1

FR 2000-2011 Commercial vehicles weighing more than 3,5 tons, commercial vehicles weighing more than 20 tons, commercial vehicles weighing less than 3,5 tons

HU 2009-2011 Passenger cars, buses, lorries, road tractors

IE 1999-2011 M3, M2, M1, N3, N2, N1

IT 1999-2012 M3 (max mass>10 tons; 5 tons< max mass≤ 10 tons); M2, M1, N3, N2, N1

LI - -

LU 1999-2012 N2-N3, M2-M3, M1, N1

LV 1999-2012 M3 (max mass>10 tons; 5 tons< max mass≤ 10 tons); M2, M1, N3, N2, N1

PO 2005-2012 M3 (max mass>10 tons; 5 tons< max mass≤ 10 tons); M2, M1, N3, N2, N1

RO 2007-2012 M3 (max mass>10 tons; 5 tons< max mass≤ 10 tons); M2, M1, N3, N2, N1

SK 2007-2012 M3 (max mass>10 tons; 5 tons< max mass≤ 10 tons); M2, M1, N3, N2, N1

UK 1999-2012 M3 (max mass>10 tons; 5 tons< max mass≤ 10 tons); M2 , M1, N3, N2, N1

NO 2000-2012 M3, M2, M1, N3, N2, N1

Type of data on vehicle kilometer registered per vehicle category and per

road type provided

Country Time series Data provided

195

AT 1999-2011 Data per type of road (Urban, rural and motorway) and type of vehicles (N1, N2+N3, M2+M3)

FI 1999-2009 Data per vehicle category (M3-M2; N3-N2; M1-N1)on main roads

HU - Annual Average Daily Traffic, motorized vehicle’s traffic, Heavy goods vehicles’ traffic, commercial vehicles (Data on vehicle kilometre a day)

IT

2000-2012 Data per vehicle category (M1+N1, M2+M3+N2+N3)

2010 Data per vehicle category (M1+N1, M2+M3+N2+N3) and type of road (motorways and interurban

roads)

LV 2005-2012 Data per vehicle category (M3, M2, M1, N3, N2, N1)

SK 2007-2012 Data per vehicle category (M3 (max mass>10 tons; 5 tons< max mass≤ 10 tons); M2, M1, N3, N2, N1)

UK 2006-2011 Data per vehicle type (cars, motorcycles, buses and coaches, light vans, good vehicles, motor vehicles, pedal cycles) and road type (rural, urban, major and minor roads) (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tra02-traffic-by-road-class-and-region-kms)

Speed detected

On the basis of the replies received, data on speed detected are available only for few countries.

The table below reports the data on speed detected per country as asked to the ministries of

transport in the questionnaire.

Type of data on speed detected provided per EU country

Country Time series Categorization

FI 1999-2012 Average speed and standard deviation per M3-M2, N3-N2; M1-N1 and per road type (one carriage-way road, motorways)

IT 2012 Speed detected per vehicle category (M1+N1, M2+M3+N2+N3) and road type (motorways and interurban roads)

SK - Average speed of motor vehicles divided for urban roads and rural roads

UK Average speeds on locally managed A roads during the weekday morning peak(https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/cgn02-flow-weighted-vehicle-speeds)

Free-flow speeds by road type and vehicle type (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/spe01-vehicle-speeds)

NO 2004-2012 Average speed distribution according to different speed limitation

Road safety

Data on road safety per country has been required on the basis of the following differentiation:

Number and severity of accidents per vehicle category (M3, M2, N3, N2) and type of road (motorways and interurban roads);

Number and severity of accidents provoked by the excessive heavy vehicle speed differentiated per type of road (motorways and interurban roads);

Number and severity of accidents caused by heavy vehicles below 7.5 tons differentiated per vehicle category (M3, M2, N2) and type of road (motorways and interurban roads);

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/tra02-traffic-by-road-class-and-region-kms

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/cgn02-flow-weighted-vehicle-speeds

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/spe01-vehicle-speeds

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/spe01-vehicle-speeds

196

Number and severity of accidents caused by heavy vehicles weighting more than 7.5 tons, differentiated per vehicle category (M3, N3, N2) and type of road (motorways and interurban roads).

The following type of data has been directly provided by the questionnaire respondents

Type of data on road safety Country

Years Data provided

AT 1999-2011

Severity of accidents (accidents, injuries, fatalities) per area (urban and outside urban area) and type of vehicle (N1, N2+N3, M2+M3)

BG 2011-2012

Severity of accidents (accidents, injured, killed) per heavy vehicles and coaches; Severity of accidents (accidents, injured, killed) per urban roads and other roads

FR 2000 2008-

2011

Annual reports on road accidents. Some main figures regard road deaths per age group, user category, regions, type of roads, type of accidents, Distribution of accidents by default enabled, lack of insurance and leaving the scene,

presumed responsibility of the users involved in an injury accident, Figures on safety related to speed, the use of seatbelt, alcohol,phone.

(Figures differ per annual report, details available at

http://www.securiteroutiere.gouv.fr/content/download/4471/40656/version/3/file/Document+de+travail+ONISR+2011_vers5.xls)

IE 1999-2011

Severity of accidents (Fatal, serious and minor), per road type (Interurban roads and motorways) per N (N1, N2, N3) and M(M3, M2,) vehicles.

IT 2007-2011

Total accidents and accidents provoked by high speed per vehicle category (N2+N3, M2+M3) and type of roads (motorways and interurban)

PO 2001-2012

Road accidents reports for each year with specifications on automotive and motor vehicle accidents, time and place of

creation road accidents, accidents causes, victims of traffic accidents and pedestrian safety etc. (http://statystyka.policja.pl/portal/st/1302/76562/Wypadki_drogowe__raporty_roczne.html#top)

SK 1999-2012

Severity of accidents and their consequences per M (M2+M3) and N vehicles (N2+N3)

EU 2000-2009

Figures on :

yearly average percentage change in mean speed of cars and vans per type of roads(motorways, urban and

rural)

mean speed of cars and vans (in km/h) per type of roads(motorways, urban and rural)

percentage of cars and vans exceeding the speed limitsdifferentiated per type of roads (motorways, urban

and rural) (http://www.etsc.eu/documents/05.05%20-%20PIN%20Flash%2016.pdf)

EU 2001-

2008

Figures related to the progress in reducing drink driving deaths

(http://www.etsc.eu/documents/05.05%20-%20PIN%20Flash%2016.pdf)

EU 2005-

2009

Figures on seat belt wearing

(http://www.etsc.eu/documents/05.05%20-%20PIN%20Flash%2016.pdf)

EU Different time

bands

Figures on the collision involving

heavy goods,

light goods vehicles,

buses and coaches for specific years.

Figures are differentiated per type of roads, distance travelled and include different time bands (details available at http://www.etsc.eu/documents/ETSC_PIN_Flash_24.pdf)

Frauds detected

Type of data on frauds detected provided by governmental contacts. Country Years Type of data PO 2008-2011 Defects detected on checks enforced.

Reports on fraud suggested by stakeholders

Stakeholder Reports

Association Prévention routière

Ministèrede l’Interieur, Le Comportement des usagers de la route, Bilan statistique de l’année 2011.

European Transport Safety Council, ETSC

ETSC, 2011, PRAISE”: Preventing Road Accidents and Injuries for the Safety of Employees, Tackling Fatigue: EU Social Rules and Heavy Goods Vehicle Drivers, Brussels

http://www.etsc.eu/documents/05.05%20-%20PIN%20Flash%2016.pdf



http://www.etsc.eu/documents/ETSC_PIN_Flash_24.pdf

197

ANNEX 11: Time series analysis: technical

approach and results for the Individual

countries

The following statistics are provided as a result of the analysis:

- Dependent variables:

o Fatal accidents where HGVs or “buses and coaches” are involved

o Accident risk for fatal accidents where HGVs or “buses and coaches” are involved

- Presented formats

o Absolute, unprocessed data.

o Centred moving means: this means that we take the centred moving mean of the

2*5 year uncentred moving means. Centred moving means provide a yearly

indication relative to the absolute, unprocessed data where small-scale influences

are controlled for

- Linear trend-line, with associated R²: an indication for the predictability of the number of

accidents as a result of safety effects that are associated with time periods (explained

variance by time).

- Individual year effects: the number of accidents above or below the expected number of

accidents when short-term fluctuations are controlled for.

Data are presented for:

- Time period: 1995 to 2011 (when possible)

- Countries: EU15 composite (main report) and individual countries (annex). Only for the

EU15 the data series are long enough to allow for this analysis.

Results for EU15 composite

The graphs below present graphically the findings of the time series analysis for the EU15

composite Member States. Composite as the accident data for the individual countries are summed

to come to one number for the EU15 as a whole.

198

Heavy goods vehicles (HGVs)

Over the period from 1995 until 2010, we find a reduction in the number of fatal accidents with

where HGVs are involved (from 3.778 to 2.062). When controlling for temporal fluctuations, we

find a similar reduction, although over a shorter period of time (from 3.457 to 2.504 over the

period from 2002 up to 2008). Noteworthy is the relative high R² value of 0.71 for the linear trend-

line, indicating that the majority of the reduction can be explained by a sole parameter (time). The

R² indicates how well data points fit a line or curve. In this case, an R² close to 1 suggest that a

linear trend-line in which the “year” is the only explanatory would be a very good model. This

would also imply that there is not really an element – such as the implementation of a Directive –

missing in the estimation. A polynomial (2nd order) trend-line allows for an R² of 0.99, suggesting a

more complex time effect could be in order. This may be the cause of the introduction of a set of

measures at or around one year.

199

However, when looking at the same data, but controlled for the number of vehicle kilometers ran

by HGV, this effect seems to have been reduced. A first order linear trendline achieves an R² of

0.95, suggesting a linear effect over time instead of the sharp cut-off indicated above. This suggests

that a maintained, yet stable reduction in the fatal accident risk per vehicle kilometer ran has been

achieved over the period of 1995 up to 2008.

When looking at the specific difference between the centred moving means and the number of fatal

accidents with HGV involved, we notice a dual effect. Whereas the period of 1995 up to 2000,

slight negative values can be found, this switches over the period from 2001 up to 2008. The

interpretation for negative values is as follows: the reported number of fatal accidents is lower that

what might have been expected based on the surrounding time period. The interpretation for

positive values is as follows: the reported number of fatal accidents is higher than what might have

been expected based on the surrounding time period. In itself, this is not a negative element.

Together with the decrease of the number of fatal accidents, it indicates that the evolution in the

reduction of fatal accidents is in particular stronger than the unique situation presented in that year.

200

In relation to the fatal accident risk, the following findings can be reported. Whereas most of the

yearly values are close to 0, indicating that the yearly value is very much in line with the centred

moving average, a slight discrepancy can be noticed over the period from 2001 to 2003. During this

period, a slightly higher yearly fatal accident risk could be found, indicating that the values for those

years are slightly worse than the surrounding years. Or, alternatively and in compound with the

overall decrease, that a stronger than average reduction could be found in the years following.

Buses and coaches

Over the period from 1997 to 2010, we find a reduction in the number of fatal accidents with

where buses or coaches are involved (from 759 to 343). When controlling for temporal

fluctuations, we find a similar reduction (from 715 to 432 from 1997 to 2008). Noteworthy is the

high R² value of 0.99 for the linear trendline, indicating that the majority of the reduction can be

explained by a sole linear parameter (time).

201

Similar findings can be made when controlling for the number of vehicle kilometers driven. A high

R² of 0.99 indicates that the majority of the reduction in fatal accident risk can be accounted for by

a sole linear parameter (time).

Overall, there is no indication that within the period 2005-2007 one single element attributed to the

continuous increase in traffic safety. Hence, purely looking at the accident data no safety effect can

be attributed to the implementation of the Speed Limitation Directive.

When looking at the specific difference between the centred moving means and the number of fatal

accidents with HGV involved, we notice a singular effect. Positive values can be found for most of

the reported years. This indicates that the reported number of fatal accidents is higher than what

might have been expected based on the surrounding time period. In itself, this is not a negative

element. Together with the decrease of the number of fatal accidents, it indicates that the evolution

in the reduction of fatal accidents is in particular stronger than the unique situation presented in

that year.

202

Similar findings can be reported when controlling for the number of vehicle kilometres ran. Slightly

positive values are found for most of the reported years. This indicates, together with the recurring

decrease in the accident risk, that the reduction in fatal accident risk remains slightly more larger in

the surrounding years than in the reported year.

Results for the individual countries

Belgium

Heavy goods vehicles

203

204

Buses and coaches

205

206

Czech Republic


207

208

Buses and coaches

209

210

Denmark


211

212

Buses and coaches

213

214

Germany


215

216

Buses and coaches

217

218

Ireland


219

220

Buses and coaches

221

222

Greece


223

224

Buses and coaches

225

226

Spain


227

228

Buses and coaches

229

230

France


231

232

Buses and coaches

233

234

Italy


235

236

Buses and coaches

237

238

Luxemburg


239

240

Buses and coaches

241

242

The Netherlands


243

244

Buses and coaches

245

246

Austria


247

248

Buses and coaches

249

250

Poland


251

252

Buses and coaches

253

254

Portugal


255

256

Buses and coaches

257

258

Romania


259

260

Buses and coaches

261

262

Slovakia


263

264

Buses and coaches

265

266

Finland


267

268

Buses and coaches

269

270

Sweden


271

272

Buses and coaches

273

274

United Kingdom


275

276

Buses and coaches

277

278

ANNEX 12: Methodology for road safety

calculations

Literature and selection of approach

To find a good approach to assess the road safety impacts of speed limiters, an assessment has been

made of the available literature. In short: It is clear that higher speeds lead to higher crash risks, but

it is difficult to estimate the exact increase in crash risk. It also depends on the initial speed level

and the road environment. Higher speeds will also lead to more severe accidents.

Furthermore not only the average speed of the traffic counts but also the speed differences

between various (types of) vehicles. Large speed differences at a road also increase the likelihood of

a crash. In addition, drivers driving much faster than the average driver have a higher crash risk.

These different effects have been researched and described in the literature. In this section we will

give an overview.

Absolute speed and accident risk

This section describes the relationship between the absolute speed and accident risk. With absolute

speed we mean the speed of an individual vehicle or the average speed of traffic. Absolute speed is

used to distinguish it from the other aspect of speed: the dispersion in the speed distribution or the

deviation of the individual speed compared to the average speed (see section 2.6.2). The next

section describes the relationship between the distribution of the speed and the probability of an

accident.

Several speed-crash studies looked at absolute speed, either at individual vehicle level or at road

section level. All of them conclude that there is an increase of the accident rate with an increase in

speed (ERSO, 2006). On any road, an increase in speed will lead to the increased likelihood of a

crash. Very strong relationships have been established between speed and crash risk.

High speeds reduce the possibility to respond in time in critical situations. People need time to

process information, to decide whether or not to react and, finally to react. At high speed the

distance covered in this period is longer. At higher speeds the distance between starting to brake

and a complete standstill is longer as well. The driver needs to have more control over the vehicle

in order to drive safely at higher speeds. Also for other drivers it is harder to assess the behaviour

of a fast driving vehicle. Finally, the drivers vision is narrowed at higher speed so that less of the

environment is observed.

Relatively many studies have examined the relation between absolute speed and crash rate.

Irrespective of the research method used, practically all the studies concluded that the relation

between speed and crash rate can best be described as a power function: the crash rate increases

more rapidly when the speed increases and vice versa (SWOV, 2012).

279

Nilsson (1982) and Elvik (2009)

Very well-known Scandinavian studies that are still often quoted in this context are those carried

out by Nilsson (1982; 2004), Elvik, Christensen & Amundsen (2004) and Elvik (2009). These

studies examined the effects on the number of crashes of the increases and decreases of average

speeds on a road section mostly due to changes in speed limit.

Nilsson (1982) developed the following formula to describe the effects of a speed change on the

number of injury accidents:

( )

with A2 as the number of injury crashes after a speed change; A1 as the number of injury crashes

before the speed change; v1 as the average speed before the change, and v2 as the average speed

after.

He derived this relation based on the notion that when speed increases, the kinetic energy increases,

Because kinetic energy is determined by the square of the vehicles speed, the probability of injury

and the severity of injuries increase exponentially with vehicle speed.

Speed and injury severity

The absolute speed also has an impact on injury severity. For any given road, there is a relationship

between increased injury severity and increased speed. When the collision speed increases, the

amount of kinetic energy that is released increases as well. Part of this energy will need to be

absorbed by the vulnerable human body. This is particularly true for occupants of light vehicles

when colliding with more heavy vehicles, and for unprotected road users, such as pedestrians and

cyclists when colliding with motorized vehicles. Generally, the more kinetic energy to be dissipated

in a collision, the greater the potential for injury to vehicle occupants.

Power functions updated by Elvik (2009)

Nilsson reasoned that the severe injury crash rate would be affected more by a change in speed

than the overall crash rate. Based on empirical data of the effects on crashes after a speed limit

change on Swedish roads, he increased the power of the function to calculate the number of severe

injury (I) and fatal crashes (F) to respectively 3 and 4:

( )

( )

With I1 and I2 as the number of severe injuries before and after the speed change and F1 and F2 the

number of fatalities before and after the speed change.

The recent study by Elvik (2009) made it possible to refine this quantitative relationship. He

defined the general power function as shown below and specified different exponents relating to

the type of accident. The general function is:

280

The exponent depends on the severity of accident that is considered. In general, the exponent is

higher for more severe accidents. He also made a distinction between urban and rural roads. This

showed that the effect of an increase or decrease of speed on rural roads is relatively greater than

the effect on urban roads. The exponent is higher for motorways in comparison to urban roads.

Table A- 1 shows the exponents for different accident severities for rural roads/motorways and for

urban/residential roads, based on the latest empirical data (Elvik, 2009).

Table A- 1: The exponents of the power functions for the relationship between speed and

crashes/casualties with different injury severity (Elvik, 2009)

As the power functions of Nilsson were extensively evaluated (Nilsson, 2004; Elvik et al., 2004) and

fitted the speed and crash data of very different road types, Aarts and van Schagen (2006) consider

that these functions describe this relationship best. They are based on a fairly sound before–after

study design and describe the effect of changes in average speed on different crash severities levels.

Speed dispersion and accident risk

The speed-crash-rate-relation is further complicated by the fact that the crash-rate is not only

related to the absolute speed, but also to the speed dispersion. If on a particular road, the vehicles

travel at different speeds, the probability of an encounter is higher than if they drive at similar

speeds (Hauer, 1971; Elvik et al., 2004). Faster traffic will be catching up with and passing slower

vehicles. Higher speed variance this will result in less predictability, more encounters, more

overtaking manoeuvres, etc. Many studies emphasized speed variance, rather than absolute speed,

as the primary culprit in the incidence of crashes (ERSO, 2006).

281

The effect that speed differences between vehicles have on the crash-rate is studied in two ways.

The first type of studies (e.g. Taylor et al., 2000) are those that compare the crash rates between

roads that have a large speed variance (large differences in vehicle speeds during a 24 hour period)

and roads that have a small speed variance. These studies mostly conclude that roads with a large

speed variance are less safe (Aarts & Van Schagen, 2006).

The second type of studies are those that concentrate on the speed differences between the

individual vehicles that were involved in a crash and all the other vehicles. The first studies of this

type were conducted in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s, e.g. Solomon (1964). These

studies always found a U-curve: the slower or faster a car drives compared with most of the

vehicles on that road, the more the risk of being involved in a crash increased. However, more

recent studies, especially those carried out in Australia (e.g. Kloeden et al., 1997; 2001; 2002) that

used more modern measuring instruments and used a more accurate research design, reached a

different conclusion. They still indicate that vehicles that drive faster than average on that road have

a higher crash rate; vehicles that drive slower, however, were found not to have an increased risk.

Both the older and the more recent studies provide evidence that driving faster than the

surrounding traffic increases the risk of a crash. With regard to driving slower than average, the

evidence is less conclusive.

Concluding, when speed differences increase, the crash risk increases as well. Hence, a measure that

results in lower average speed, but in larger speed differences may not have the expected positive

effect on road safety.

Kloeden et al. (2001)

A more recent case–control study that examined the crash involvement risk of slow and fast driving

vehicles more accurately, are the Australian studies of Kloeden et al. (1997, 2001). These studies

found an increased risk for vehicles moving faster than the others, but not for vehicles moving

slower.

Kloeden et al. (2001) conducted a number of case-control studies. In these studies, the speed of a

vehicle just before a serious injury accident was estimated on the basis of computer modelling.

These cases were then linked to control vehicles. At the accident site, the speed of a number of

vehicles was measured under similar circumstances. This way, the impact of vehicle speed examined

on crash. Kloeden et al. (2001) examined the speed–crash rate relationship on rural roads with

speed limits between 80 and 120 km/h. In this study, each of the 83 cases was linked to 10 control

vehicles (n = 830). They found the following formula to describe this relationship. See also Figure

A - 1.

( )

with D as the difference of the speed of an individual vehicle with the average speed

282

Figure A - 1 Relative risk on urban and rural roads for vehicles driving faster or slower than the

average speed on the road

The model has a good fit between -10 and +30 km / h and a reasonable fit over the range -20 to

+40 km / h.

It should be said that these formulas are based on Australian data, and that it is not clear to what

extent they also describe the situation well in other countries. It should also be noted that the

relative crash risk describes the probability of an accident with at least an injury in which a hospital

was consulted.

According to Aarts and van Schagen (2004) each type of study has drawbacks, but they consider

case-control studies as superior for the examination of the relationship between speed and crash

rate since they can control for many confounding factors. Therefore, they conclude that the results

of Kloeden et al. (2001) best describe the relationship between individual vehicle speed and crash

rate. This means that crash rate rises exponentially for individual vehicles that increase their speed.

Taylor et al. (2000)

As mentioned before, Taylor et al. examined speed variance at road section level. They performed a

cross-sectional study, by comparing the crash rates (hospital admission or more) between roads

that have a large speed variance and roads that have a small speed variance. They use both the

speed deviation and the average speed at the same time as explanatory variables for the accident

rates.

Taylor et al. (2000) found that traffic speed variance is related to the crash frequency. They

collected aggregated 24 h spot speed data of 300 urban single carriageway roads in the UK and

linked this to 1590 injury crashes at these roads. The researchers distinguished four road types:

congested roads in town, inner city link roads, suburban link roads, and outer suburban fast roads.

The results show that the crash frequency increased more with increasing average speed. At a more

detailed level, congested roads both had a higher absolute crash frequency and a larger increase in

crash frequency with higher average speeds than fast roads (Figure A - 1). Lower average speeds

coincide with a larger speed variance and both were found to be related to crash frequency.

283

Taylor et al states that road safety is both related to the average speed and to the speed dispersion

on the road section. Taylor developed the following formula for the relationship between accident

rate and average speed and speed variance:

( )

with v as the average speed (km/h) and SD as s the standard deviation of the speed distribution (km/h)

Figure A - 2: The relationship between average speed and crash frequency on four urban road types

(Taylor et al., 2000). The dotted lines reflect the extrapolation of the observed data, based on the

speed–crash rate according to Taylors formula

The study of Taylor et al. is useful because opposed to most other studies, who indicate either a

relationship between average speed and crash rate or a relationship between speed dispersion,

Taylor et al (2000) use both the standard deviation and the average speed at the same time as

explanatory variables for the crash.

It should be noted that Taylor et al have studied urban roads. Earlier we saw that the effect of

speed on the accident is higher on roads where the speeds are lower (Elvik, 2009; Kloeden (2000,

2001). Therefore the formula of Taylor et al. probably overestimate the crash reduction on

motorways and rural roads.

Most other studies indicate either a relationship between average speed and accident rate or just the

relationship between speed dispersion and accident rate. Only Taylor et al (2000) and Baruya and

Finch (1994), use both the speed deviation and the average speed at the same time as explanatory

variables for the accident rates. The type of study that was used to derive the relationships are

cross-sectional, and less suitable to estimate the effect. Because the formulas of Taylor et al (2000)

include both the average speed and speed dispersion, they will be used in the calculations for the

current project on speed limiters (following the study of SVV, 2005).

284

External factors

The exact relationship between speed and accidents on a particular road is very complex and will

depend on a range of road and traffic characteristics that interact with speed and also on the

characteristics and behaviour of the drivers using the road, such as age, driving experience, drink-

driving and seatbelt wearing. This means that the road safety impacts should be considered as

uncertain and a best estimate instead of exact impacts. Recent studies shed some light on these

factors as well as on the direction of the effects, but it is difficult to give specific quantifications.

Researchers must be aware of the influence of external factors on the relationship between speed

and crash-rate (Aarts and van Schagen, 2006).

Conclusion on the most relevant approaches

Even though the exact relationship between speed and crash rate depends on a large number of

different factors, clear relationships between road safety and absolute speed and speed dispersion

have been established. The literature is inconclusive on which one is more important.

Absolute speed relates to the accident risk, but also to the injury severity. This is best described by

the Nilsson formulas, updated by Elvik. The accident risk is also affected by speed dispersion. The

studies of Kloeden best describe this relationship. Taylor et al. both included absolute speed and

speed dispersion in their formula. The table summarizes these three studies with respect to the

relationship that they describe and the type of effect that is calculated.

Table A- 2: Summary of the studies that were chosen from the literature

Study

Formula includes

Calculates estimate of effect on: Absolute speed Speed dispersion

Nilsson/Elvik Yes No i.a. all injury accidents, serious injuries, fatalities

Kloeden et al No Yes Number of vehicles involved in crashes (at least hospital)

Taylor et al Yes Yes All injury crashes

Choosing a method for assessing the impacts of speed limiters on vans and

HGVs

To determine which approach methodology is appropriate for the current project we will first

describe the expected effects. The application of speed limiters to one or a few vehicle categories

(not to all passenger cars) will only affect a limited part of the total traffic flow. For the vehicle

category with speed limiters the average speed will decrease and speed deviation will also decrease.

The average speed of the total traffic flow will also decrease, but an additional consequence is that

the differences between speeds of vehicles might increase. The application of speed limiters results

in a change in the average speed and in the speed dispersion, which can be different for parts of the

traffic flow and the total traffic flow. The methodology must be able to take all these effects into

account.

By use of the formulas of Nilsson, Kloeden and Taylor, absolute speed, speed dispersion and a

combination of these are integrated in the approach. However, the studies of Nilsson, Taylor and

285

Kloeden only looked at the total traffic flow. In this project only the speeds of a part of the traffic

flow will be affected and the formulas of Nilsson, Kloeden and Taylor cannot be applied so easily.

Several other studies have already dealt with this challenge.

In the study by Hohnscheid et al. (2006) the effect of speed limiters on vans was analysed, by use of

the Nilsson formula’s. The implementation of speed limiters for vans was modelled in a simulation

to retrieve the reduction of average speeds of the total traffic flow. The power functions were then

applied to all accidents.

The study by CE Delft (2010), chose a different approach, by applying the power functions only to

the speeds of vans and then the results only to accidents with vans involved (unilateral and

multilateral). However, this approach leads to an overestimation of the effects of multilateral

accidents, because the Nilsson formula’s also take into account speed reduction of the other road

users (e.g. passenger cars), while in case of application of speed limiter on vans, the speed of

passenger cars is unchanged. To account for this, the study by CE Delft (2010) on speed limiters

for vans used the allocation principle of potential damage perspective, a principle that is used for

calculation of social costs of transport modes. Victims from multilateral accidents with vans

involved were only partly allocated to vans.

The studies of SWOV (1991) and SVV (2005) also chose the approach of applying the power

functions only to the accidents that are likely to be affected, i.e. accidents with HGVs involved. The

speeds of the involved vehicles were used for estimating the effects. In case of a multilateral

accident, with two or more vehicles involved, the average speed reduction of both vehicle

categories was weighed to the share in vehicle kilometres and then used to calculate the safety

impacts. This leads to a very small reduction for multilateral accidents, because the share of

kilometres for HGVs is small relative to the car. Therefore in this study the approach of CE Delft

(2010) was followed, using the damage potential principle.

Methodology In this section the methodology for estimating road safety impacts of speed limiters using the

changes in speeds as applied in the current project is described in 5 steps. For each step the most

important aspects will be explained.

Step 1: Effect on speed

As was said in the introduction, the calculation for effect of the speed limiters is based on a model

that simulates the changes in the speed distribution. In the simulation model it is assumed that the

desired speed distribution is normally distributed with parameters that are linked to the posted

speed limit. The speed distribution for different vehicle categories were defined based on data that

was collected from the member states and additional assumptions to fill in the gaps. This is

described in section 2.6.

We use the distributions to capture the effect of the speed limiters on driver behaviour. The

installation of speed limiters changes the shape of the distribution, since in each case all vehicles

with speed limiters that that would otherwise have a desired speed that is higher than the limiter set

speed, will be constrained to the limiter speed. This is shown in Figure A - 3. The figure shows the

percentage of vehicles driving at the different speeds and the speed limit, for an example.

286

Figure A - 3: Re-distribution of the speed distribution due to the speed limiter

Figure A - 4 shows the new speed distribution due to the speed limiter.

Figure A - 4: Changed speed distribution due to the speed limiter

Step 2: Scenario calculations

The calculation that was explained in step 1 was performed for every scenario (for ex-post, ex-ante

HCV, ex-ante LCV). The scenarios for speed limiters are compared to the reference scenario to

determine the change in speed distribution (average speed and speed deviation) for every scenario.

The effects on speeds are different per country, because the posted speed limit is different per

country. Therefore the analysis was done for every Member State separately, based on the posted

speed limits. The calculation was also performed for an average Member State with either high or

low posted speed limits. This makes it easier to present the results of the calculations later on in this

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110

no speed limiter re-distribution speeders speed limit

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110

no speed limiter with speed limiter speed limit

287

report. The posted speed limits for all Member States are included in Annex 3. The low and high

posted speed limits for an average Member State are presented in Table A- 3.

Table A- 3: Low and high posted speed limits for an average Member State

Posted speed limits

Road type Vehicle Low High

Motorway N1 115 130

N2/N3 80 90

M2/M3 90 100

Rural roads N1 90 100

N2/N3 80 90

M2/M3 80 90

Step 3: Applying the power functions

The road safety effect is estimated based on the change in average speed. The power functions are

used to make the calculations. The effect of a change in speed dispersion is also calculated from the

speed distributions, using the formulas by Taylor (2000) and Kloeden (2001) but reported in a

qualitative way.

The general power function is:

The exponent depends on the severity of accident that is considered. The exponents that were used

are presented in Table A- 4.

Table A- 4: Exponents for the revised Power Model for rural roads/motorways (Elvik 2009)

Best estimate

Fatal accidents 4,1

Serious injury accidents 2,6

All injury accidents 1,6

This way, for every scenario, every road type, every vehicle type and every Member State, the

accident reduction percentage was calculated for fatal accidents, serious injury accidents and all

injury accidents.

In the literature the relationship between speed dispersion and road safety is described by Taylor

(2000) and Kloeden (2001). For the calculations with Taylor the speed deviation and average speed

of the total traffic flow were calculated using the distribution per vehicle type and the share in

vehicle km. The share in vehicle km was retrieved from TREMOVE. Combining them results in

the distribution for the total traffic flow. From this the speed deviation and the average speed could

be calculated. The literature and formula of Taylor is described in Annex 12. The calculation for

Kloeden is slightly more difficult. The relative risk of every individual vehicle depends on the speed

of that vehicle compared to the average speed. Therefore for every speed the relative risk is

288

calculated and weighed by the share of vehicles driving that speed. This results in the cumulative

risk factor. The change in the cumulative risk factor in the reference situation and the scenario

determines the relative change in accidents for that scenario. Based on these calculations, a

qualitative evaluation was made. The effect is presented on a 5-point scale, varying from – – to ++,

and explained in text.

Step 4: Effect at EU level

In the next step the reduction percentages for accidents (fatal, serious injury, or all injury accidents)

are applied to accident data for the EU Member States (source: CARE). The accident data that was

used is the average for 2008-2011, to minimize the influence of variation in the dataset. If there was

not sufficient data available, the Member State was left out of the analysis. This was the case for

Bulgaria, Estonia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Finland (applied to EU27). The data that

was used for the evaluation is presented in Table A- 5.

Table A- 5: Average number of accidents in the EU for the period 2008-2011 per road type, accident

severity and for different vehicle types involved that were used for the evaluation

No HCV or LCV involved

HGV involved Bus involved LCV involved Total

motorway Fatal accidents 873 507 38 249 1.667

Serious injury accidents 5.923 2.159 97 1.211 9.390

All injury accidents 35.126 9.714 489 7.041 52.370

rural Fatal accidents 9.451 2.050 243 1.275 13.019

Serious injury accidents 49.893 4.186 591 4.750 59.420

All injury accidents 197.152 17.455 2.631 21.915 239.154

urban Fatal accidents 7.636 1.079 360 813 9.888

Serious injury accidents 89.787 3.454 2.987 6.339 102.567


all roads Fatal accidents 17.959 3.636 641 2.337 24.573

Serious injury accidents 145.603 9.799 3.674 12.300 171.376


With this data and the accident reduction percentages from the previous steps, the road safety

effect was calculated.

For accidents with only HGVs involved, only the speeds of HGVs have an impact (not the speeds

of other vehicle categories). For accidents with only vans involved, only the speeds of vans have an

impact. This is also shown in Table A- 6.

Table A- 6: Accident type and used speed distributions

Conflict type Vehicle category speeds used to estimate the impact

Accidents without LCV or HCV -

Accidents involving HCVs HCVs

Accidents involving LCVs N1-vehicles

There are unilateral and multilateral accidents. Unilateral accidents involve only one vehicle, while

multilateral accidents involve several vehicles.

289

Step 5: Damage potential perspective

An important limitation of the power formulas is that they were estimated based on a reduction in

average speed for the total traffic flow. For multilateral accidents, involving multiple vehicles, this

means that both victim and opponent have reduced their average speed.

In this evaluation study however, only the HCVs (or LCVs) reduce their average speed due to the

speed limiter. This means that in a multilateral accidents with other vehicles, only one of the

involved vehicles is driving slower. Therefore the effect of the reduction in average speed for all

accidents involving HCVs is overestimated by the power functions.

Because HCVs have a relative high accident risk and the crash opponent fatality rate is high, due to

the great mass of the vehicle, the reduction in accidents is expected to be higher than 50% of the

effect calculated by the power functions.

The measure that we use to estimate the relative effect is the damage potential perspective, as was

used in the study External costs of transport in Europe (2011). This measure accounts for the

damage potential of HCVs (or LCVs) compared to other vehicles. The relative effect of a speed

reduction of those vehicles is proportional to the damage potential. The conclusion is that the

reduction of multilateral accidents involving HCVs is lower than estimated by the power functions.

For the total reduction in accidents, the other involved vehicles would have to slow down too. The

effect is expected to be higher than 50% of the effect calculated by the power functions, because

heavy vehicles have a relative high accident risk and the crash opponent fatality rate is high.

Method:

For fatalities in the Netherlands in the period 2006-2012, 91% of the casualties in accidents

involving HCVs were in the other vehicle (source BRON Dutch Ministry of Transport). According

to the damage potential perspective, these casualties are accounted to the HCVs. The other 9% are

occupants of HCVs. Of those 9%, 18% were victim in an unilateral accident. The relative effect

from a damage potential perspective is then (91% + 9%*18% =) 93%. The data for buses was too

limited and aggregated with HGV data. Table A- 7 shows the result for fatalities and severe injuries

for both HCVs and LCVs.

Table A- 7: Relative effect of a reduction in average speed for HCVs and LCVs (damage potential

perspective)

HCV LCV

Fatalities 93% 63%

Severe injuries 84% 65%

Example:

A reduction in average speed for LCVs leads to a fatal accident reduction percentage of 10%

according to the power formulas. The relative effect for all fatal accidents involving LCVs is 63%

according to the damage potential perspective. The percentage of fatal accidents involving LCVs

that are prevented due to the reduction of average speed is 6,3%.

290

ANNEX 13: Speed profiles for emission

analysis

Table A- 8: characteristics of speed profiles used in ex-post analysis for HGVs and buses on motorways.

Table A- 9: characteristics of analysed speed profiles for HGVs and buses on motorways, in case of a

higher assumed average speed before the introduction of the speed limiter (ex-post sensitivity analysis).

Output

Posted

speed limit

Speed limiter

speed

Average

speed

STD on

speed

Average

speed

STD on

speed

km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h

1 1 Ex post motorway N2/N3 80 0 85 6 85 6


3 3 Ex post motorway M2/M3 90 0 95 6 95 6






Profile

Nr.

Reference

Nr.

Scenario Road type Vehicle

type

Input

Without speed

limiter With speed limiter

Output

Posted

speed limit

Speed limiter

speed

Average

speed

STD on

speed

Average

speed

STD on

speed


9 9 Sensitivity motorway N2/N3 80 0 90 6 90 6


11 11 Sensitivity motorway M2/M3 90 0 100 6 100 6






Without speed


Profile

Nr.

Reference

Nr.


type

Input

291

Table A- 10: characteristics of analysed speed profiles for HGVs and buses on motorways, in case of

lower speed limiter speeds (ex-ante analysis, scenario 1).

Table A- 11: characteristics of analysed speed profiles for HGVs and buses on rural roads (ex-ante

analysis, scenario 1).

Table A- 12: characteristics of analysed speed profiles for HGVs and buses on motorways and rural roads

(ex-ante analysis, scenario 2).

Output

Posted

speed limit

Speed limiter

speed

Average

speed

STD on

speed

Average

speed

STD on

speed


17 17 HCV1 motorway N2/N3 80 90 85 6 85 6

18 18 HCV1 motorway N2/N3 90 90 90 6 88 5

19 19 HCV1 motorway M2/M3 90 100 95 6 95 6

20 20 HCV1 motorway M2/M3 100 100 100 6 98 5

21 17 HCV1 motorway N2/N3 80 80 85 6 79 4

22 18 HCV1 motorway N2/N3 90 80 90 6 80 3

23 19 HCV1 motorway M2/M3 90 90 95 6 89 4

24 20 HCV1 motorway M2/M3 100 90 100 6 90 3

Input

Without speed


Profile

Nr.

Reference

Nr.


type

Output

Posted

speed limit

Speed limiter

speed

Average

speed

STD on

speed

Average

speed

STD on

speed


25 25 HCV1 rural road N2/N3 80 90 70 10 70 10

26 26 HCV1 rural road N2/N3 90 90 80 10 80 10

27 27 HCV1 rural road M2/M3 80 100 70 10 70 10

28 28 HCV1 rural road M2/M3 90 100 80 10 80 10

29 25 HCV1 rural road N2/N3 80 80 70 10 70 10

30 26 HCV1 rural road N2/N3 90 80 80 10 76 7

31 27 HCV1 rural road M2/M3 80 90 70 10 70 10

32 28 HCV1 rural road M2/M3 90 90 80 10 80 10

Input

Without speed


Profile

Nr.

Reference

Nr.


type

Output

Posted

speed limit

Speed limiter

speed

Average

speed

STD on

speed

Average

speed

STD on

speed


33 33 HCV2 motorway N2/N3 80 90 85 6 85 6

34 34 HCV2 motorway N2/N3 90 90 90 6 88 5

35 33 HCV2 motorway N2/N3 80 100 85 6 85 6

36 34 HCV2 motorway N2/N3 90 100 90 6 90 6

37 37 HCV2 rural road N2/N3 80 90 70 10 70 10

38 38 HCV2 rural road N2/N3 90 90 80 10 80 10

39 37 HCV2 rural road N2/N3 80 100 70 10 70 10

40 38 HCV2 rural road N2/N3 90 100 80 10 80 10

Input

Without speed


Profile

Nr.

Reference

Nr.


type

292

Table A- 13: characteristics of analysed speed profiles for LCVs on motorways and rural roads (ex-ante


Table A- 14: characteristics of analysed speed profiles for LCVs on motorways and rural roads (ex-ante


Output

Posted

speed limit

Speed limiter

speed

Average

speed

STD on

speed

Average

speed

STD on

speed


41 41 LCV1 motorway N1 115 0 107.5 16 107.5 16

42 42 LCV1 motorway N1 130 0 115 16 115 16

43 41 LCV1 motorway N1 115 110 107.5 16 103 13

44 42 LCV1 motorway N1 130 110 115 16 105 11

45 45 LCV1 rural road N1 90 0 80 14 80 14

46 46 LCV1 rural road N1 100 0 90 14 90 14

47 45 LCV1 rural road N1 90 110 80 14 80 14

48 46 LCV1 rural road N1 100 110 90 14 90 14

Input

Without speed


Profile

Nr.

Reference

Nr.


type

Output

Posted

speed limit

Speed limiter

speed

Average

speed

STD on

speed

Average

speed

STD on

speed


49 49 LCV2 motorway N1 115 0 107.5 16 107.5 16

50 50 LCV2 motorway N1 130 0 115 16 115 16

51 49 LCV2 motorway N1 115 100 107.5 16 96 10

52 50 LCV2 motorway N1 130 100 115 16 98 8

53 53 LCV2 rural road N1 90 0 80 14 80 14

54 54 LCV2 rural road N1 100 0 90 14 90 14

55 53 LCV2 rural road N1 90 100 80 14 80 14

56 54 LCV2 rural road N1 100 100 90 14 90 14

Input

Without speed


Profile

Nr.

Reference

Nr.


type

293

Ex-post analysis

Central scenario

Figure A - 5: Profile number 1


294



295



296



297

Sensitivity analysis



298



299



300

Figure A - 19: : Profile number 15


301

Ex-ante analysis (HCVs)

Scenario 1

Motorway



302



303



304



305

Rural road



306



307



308



309

Scenario 2

Motorway



310



311

Rural road



312



313

Ex-ante analysis (LCVs)

Scenario 1

Motorway



314



315

Rural road



316



317

Scenario 2

Motorway



318



319

Rural road



320



321

ANNEX 14: Classification speed limits per

country

For the analysis of emission impacts ‘high’ and ‘low’ in the table above means that the impacts for

‘high’ or ‘low’ has been applied to that Member State, as shown in Table 2-13. In the cases that ‘no

effect’ is indicated, the speed limit in a Member State is so low that the impacts on speeds and

emission can assumed to be a negligible.

Rural Motorway

country HGVs Busses HGVs Busses LCVs LCVs

BE high no effect high low low low

BG low low high high low high

CZ low high low high low high

DK no effect low low no effect no effect high

DE low low low high high high

EE high high high low low no effect

IE low low high high high low

GR low low low high low high

ES low high low low high low

FR low high high high low high

IT low low high high low high

CY no effect low low high no effect low

LV low high high high low low

LT low low high high low high

LU high no effect high low low high

HU no effect no effect low no effect low high

MT no effect no effect no effect no effect no effect no effect

NL low low low high no effect high

AT no effect low low high high high

PL no effect no effect low high low high

PT low low high high low low

RO high high high high high high

SI high high high high low high

SK high high high high low high

FI low low low high no effect low

SE no effect no effect high low no effect low

UK low high high high high low

Rural Motorway

322

ANNEX 15: Emission models used

VERSIT+ model

The VERSIT+ model of TNO will be used to calculate the emissions for specific speed profiles. The VERSIT+ modal has been developed to estimate the emissions of specific driving patters and has been built upon a large amount of data from real world driving patterns.

Road traffic emission models serve a variety of purposes. They may be used in for instance emission inventory studies, to determine the total, annual and national emissions of all vehicles, and relate these numbers to the average emission of a fleet-average vehicle in a generic category, like a passenger car or a heavy-duty HGV. Another purpose is to test the compliance with emission regulations. Beyond this compliance lies a further goal to make the regulations fitting for the problems they are meant to solve.

A completely different purpose of emission models is to assist the development of new technology, by precise knowledge of the circumstances of the vehicle and the engine at which the unwanted emissions may occur. These emission models are meant to supply a direct, experimental link between vehicle operation and emissions.

Another application is the direct link between emissions and local air quality. In many urban areas where the air pollution exceeds the limit, there is a substantial traffic-related contribution. Therefore, the wish to monitor and to take effective measures has grown. The emission models are one part of the missing link between road traffic and the deterioration of air quality. The other part is the dispersion model; how the exhaust gases spread in the air.

The VERSIT+ emission model has been the Dutch road traffic emission model for many years for mainly the first goals: the average emissions in a variety of circumstances, for present and future fleet decomposition. The effects of planned government policies lead to changes in fleet composition, fleet usage and age, with corresponding effect in the gross emissions. These emission factors form part of the basis of the environment reports submitted by the local governments. A simple dispersion model links the daily traffic intensities with air-quality, which is for instance done in the Dutch CAR model.

The results produced by these models, are largely based on averages and they produce as many questions as answers if used to estimate the effect of traffic related measures. Many variations in the traffic situations, local road planning, or fleet composition will not be visible in these results.

Emission models

VERSIT+ is a statistical emission model able to calculate real-world HC, CO, NOx, NO2, PM10 and CO2 emissions of road vehicles. It is best seen as an analysis tool of a large set of emission measurements of the Dutch fleet, mainly performed in the in-use compliance program. Over 20.000 measurements with warm and cold engines on over 3.200 different vehicles have been performed in a period over twenty years. The vehicles were randomly selected from the commonly sold models and were requested from their owners, to participate in the testing program. The average maintenance state of the vehicles should therefore correspond to the Dutch situation. Furthermore, new technology has always been included in the VERSIT+ model to be able to estimate their effects of their mass introduction.

The emission results themselves are already representative of the Dutch situation, since besides type approval tests like the NEDC and the FTP, in most cases real world driving cycles, like the CADC,

323

OSCAR en Dutch F&E cycles, are used to characterize the driving behavior for which the emissions are determined. Every vehicle is tested typically on five different tests, but some on many more, as in the cases of durability testing.

To develop an emission model for a given driving behavior and vehicle type from the large set of vehicles, driving cycles and emission measurements a detailed statistical analysis is used. Two main ingredients are the distinction of relevant vehicle categories, with similar emission characteristics, and the characterization of driving behavior in relevant parameters on which the emission actually depend.

The vehicle categories are generally straightforwardly based on fuel, emission standard, injection technology, after-treatment technology, and transmission. The disadvantage of making such a detailed distinction is insufficient data in some of the categories, while on the other hand automatic transmission and older injection technology will strongly affect certain emissions, of these cars.

The characterization of driving behavior has evolved continuously. The average velocity was one of the first parameters to be used. Once it became clear that this was insufficient for an accurate emission prediction, a power variable, like average acceleration was added. More and more parameters, like trip fraction of idling, were added, and eventually there was a list of over fifty parameters for each trip, from which the relevant ones were selected, by checking for the dependencies. For every vehicle category and emission component this process was repeated. Therefore, generating the emission model VERSIT+ had become a cumbersome process.

Trip parameters versus instantaneous parameters

The trip parameters are only valid for a trip, which consist of at least several hundred meters of driving, from stop to stop. This is also closely tied to the measurement data, which yields a total emission in grams per test, for a particular driving cycle or trip. The actual time-dependence of the emissions, as the result of driving at that moment, or a few seconds before, has become available only in the last ten years with modal mass, or time-dependent, measurements. The quality of such data in the laboratory has increased in the last years. Hence it is possible to construct a second-by-second model from the data.

Velocity and acceleration dependence

A great part of VERSIT+ is to translate the bag results into velocity acceleration dependent results. The aggregated data per trip makes a full conversion impossible, and from velocities and accelerations combinations have be sought, to construct a robust emission model. Since for each vehicle category between fifteen and twenty five different drive cycles were used in the testing, the emission model can never have more than these fifteen to twenty five degrees of freedom.

Therefore, it is important to choose the degrees of freedom in the emission model appropriately. In a sense, instead of relying on a long list of variables, or models, to find the most appropriate ones, the basic model is selected in advance. Two criteria were used to select the model variables: First, the variables have to be independent to avoid the use of two variables which describe the same effect. Second, the variables have to be relevant to evenly divide the variables such that their share in the total emission is of the same magnitude.

Handling large variations in measurements

Especially for CO and HC emissions only a small fraction of the vehicles, in a small fraction of the traffic situations, produce the majority of the emissions. Only for CO2, and in lesser extent for PM10 in certain older diesel vehicle technologies, the variation is smaller than the average itself. In all other relevant emission components, the variation inside the same vehicle class is significant. Therefore, emission modeling for a fleet and a wide range of traffic situations requires statistical analysis. Only a few measurements on a few vehicles are insufficient produce a representative

324

national emission model. Several dozens of vehicles are required to produce enough statistics to bring the model uncertainty down to an acceptable value, less than 10 % of the mean emissions.

Also, little less than half the emissions tests are type-approval tests such as the MVEG-A, MVEG-B, and FTP tests, which are less representative for real world driving. To ensure that these tests do not dominate the analysis, a weighted average of the type-approval tests and the real-world driving tests has been used during the model development. The weighting of type-approval test results is one fifth of the real-world test results.

History effects and modal mass data

The most important history effect is cold start. Most of the CO and HC emissions are produced just after the start. Also the CO2 emission is typically higher during the cold start. The retention of the cold start effects depend on the components, but in VERSIT+ the time-dependence is not taken into account, mainly because it is hard to determine the precise trip in average Dutch driving. It is simpler to assume that in the majority of the cases the engine is warm at the end of the trip, meaning that the full contribution of the cold start emissions were produced during the trip. Depending on the components this may be after less than hundred meters for HC and CO to four to five kilometers for CO2 emissions and emissions related to the higher fuel consumption.

Modal mass, or second-by-second, data can be treated in the similar manner in the VERSIT+ model as bag data. The prediction of the model depends on the ten parameters q0...q9, which are known for every second. In principle the measurement of every data point counts as a separate test. Some care must be taken, in this case unlike the bag data, to compensate for history effects. The emission may have a delay by some time with respect to the velocity and acceleration.

At TNO modal mass data has be measured intermittently from 1998, during the tests. Some of the older data exhibit misalignment: the CO2 signal does not coincide with the power demand as determined from velocity and acceleration, but is advanced or delayed with respect with the power demand. Likewise, all other signals are misaligned. Possibly, the delay may vary with exhaust gas velocity. Modal mass data must be analyzed both for history and misalignment effects.

Limitations of the VERSIT+ model

As all models VERSIT+ has some limitations, either due to the model data (as derived from measurements) or to the way the model is set up.

The emission measurements for VERSIT+ are done on a sample of vehicles taken from the Dutch real-world fleet. This sample is for some vehicle categories small and may have

insufficient data.

The VERSIT+ model is primarily designed to model general average driving behavior, i.e. trip averages, for average vehicles belonging to certain vehicle categories. This implies that it is limited in the velocity dependent detail it can accurately model.

Not a direct limitation but rather a point not to forget in the European context is the following.

The VERSIT+ database is based on measurements on a sample of vehicles taken from the Dutch vehicle fleet and not from the European vehicle fleet. Thus, for a certain vehicle category the VERSIT+ data will usually accurately model the average Dutch vehicle for that category. This need not be the case for the average European vehicle for that category. This can be overcome by using an adapted weighting over the measured vehicles within each category, which compensates for differences between the Dutch and European fleets.

325

TREMOVE model

TREMOVE (www.tremove.org ) is a transport and emissions simulation model developed for the European Commission. It is designed to study the effects of different transport and environment policies on the emissions of the transport sector. The model estimates the transport demand, the modal split, the vehicle fleets, the emissions of air pollutants and the welfare level under different policy scenarios. All relevant transport modes are modelled, including air and maritime transport. The model covers the 1995-2030 period.

Context

TREMOVE is a policy assessment model to study the effects of different transport and environment policies on the emissions of the transport sector. The model estimates the transport demand, the modal shifts, the vehicle stock renewal, the emissions of air pollutants and the welfare level. The model can be applied for environmental and economic analysis of different policies such as road pricing, public transport pricing, emission standards, payments for public services for cleaner cars etc. TREMOVE models both passenger and freight transport in 31 European countries (EU 27 + Croatia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey), and covers the period 1995-2030 with yearly intervals.

The TREMOVE II model has been further developed by Transport & Mobility Leuven in a service contract for the European Commission, DG Environment. The first version of the model dates 1997-1998. At that time, the model covered 9 countries and focussed on road transport. The K.U.Leuven and DRI developed the first model as an analytical underpinning for the European Auto-Oil II programme.

In 2002-2005, TREMOVE has been enhanced and extended. The new model also covers explicitly rail, air and shipping and deals with a larger set of pollutants. Moreover, it covers all EU15 countries, plus Switzerland, Norway, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia. The new model has been made consistent with other European transport and energy scenarios and takes on board the most recent emission computation methodology available at EU level.

Since March 2005, the TREMOVE II transport and emissions model has been available for policy runs. It has been instrumental for the Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) programme for air quality, the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP), as well as for other programmes like the update of the white paper for transport (ASSESS).

In 2006 TREMOVE was updated by improving the database for 1995-2000 (statistical data) and making some minor model additions (projections on hybrids, CNG, airco). Moreover, 10 new countries, improved emission modeling, and a more elaborate vehicle choice model are added.

Recent projects (f.e. TREMOVE SCP-CAR) contain the impact of environmental taxation and a scrappage subsidies on transport emissions and economy. TREMOVE was extended with a new module that covers the material flows (production and waste) of road transport. The most recent version TREMOVE v3.1 is available at the JRC of the European Commission.

In 2009-2010, TREMOVE was thoroughly updated with particular focus on updating the input data. This project resulted in the youngest TREMOVE versions: “v3.3.2” en “v3.3.2 alt”, corresponding to the version used in the i-TREN project (3.3.2: iTREN Reference, 3.3.2 alt: Integrated).

326

Modular Structure

TREMOVE consists of 31 parallel country models, and one maritime model. Each country model consists of three inter-linked ‘core’ modules: a transport demand module, a vehicle turnover module and an emission and fuel consumption module, to which we add a welfare cost module and a life cycle emissions module.

The transport demand module describes transport flows and the users’ decision making process when it comes to making their modal choice. The TREMOVE model represents the transport activities in a country as an aggregate of the activities in three types of zones: metropolitan, urban and non urban. For each zone, one represents all modes of passenger transport and freight transport. Passenger and freight users have the choice between some 240 different types of modes and vehicles (mode, vehicle, timing etc.). Road freight and passenger transport interact via congestion and a distinction is made between peak and off peak traffic. The preferences of passengers differ in function of the motive (professional, commuting, leisure) and choices are made taking into account preferences, money and time costs. For freight, different types of transport (unitized, bulk..) are distinguished and modal choice is a function of the time and money cost of the different alternatives. The private cost of transport consists of the price set by the suppliers (equal to the marginal resource cost if not subsidized) plus all the taxes, charges and tolls. Urban public transport supply is characterized by a Mohring effect: an increase in demand allows to improve frequencies and to reduce waiting times. The capacity of the road infrastructure is represented via area speed flow functions. Starting from the baseline level of demand for passenger and freight transport per mode, period, region etc., the module describes how the implementation of a policy measure will affect the user’s and company’s choice between these 240 different transport types. The key assumption here is that the transport users will select the volume of transport and their preferred mode, period, region etc. based on the generalized price for each mode: cost, tax or subsidy and time cost per km travelled and the price elasticity. The TREMOVE model incorporates a range of elasticity values, which are either exogenous or endogenous to the model. The household utility functions and the business production functions are nested CES functions – hence, assume constant elasticity of substitution at each level of the tree. This implies that at each branching of the utility and production trees an elasticity of substitution value must be specified. These elasticities of substitution are explicitly present in the utility and production functions and are determined outside the model. The elasticities of substitution (together with the demands and prices of the “goods’, i..e. the transport modes) determine three endogenous elasticities: the income elasticities, the own price elasticity and the cross price elasticities.

The output of the demand module consists of passenger kilometers (pkm) and tonne kilometers (tkm) that are demanded per transport type for a given policy environment. The pkm and tkm are then converted into vehicle kilometers.

The vehicle stock turnover module describes how changes in demand for transport or changes in vehicle price structure influence the share of age and type of vehicles in the stock. The output of the vehicle stock module is twofold: we split both the total fleet and the number of km for each year according to vehicle type and age.

The fuel consumption and emissions module is used to calculate fuel consumption and emissions, based on the structure of the vehicle stock, the number of kilometers driven by each vehicle type and the driving conditions.

Outputs from the vehicle stock and fuel consumptions and emissions modules are fed back into the demand module. As fuel consumption, stock structure and usage influence usage costs, they are important determinants of transport demand and modal split.

In addition to the three core modules, the TREMOVE model includes a lifecycle emissions and a welfare cost module.

327

The lifecycle emissions module enables to calculate emissions during production of fuels and electricity. The welfare cost module has been developed to compute the cost to society associated with different transport policy measures. The welfare effect of a policy change is calculated as the discounted sum of changes in utility of households, production costs, external costs of congestion and pollution and benefits of tax recycling. These benefits of tax recycling represent the welfare effect of avoiding public funds to be collected from other sectors, when the transport sector generates more revenues.

In this study the model is used for counterfactual analysis: what is the effect on transport volumes, modal split, external costs and the welfare of modifying taxes and charges such that they better match the different external costs.

Limitations of the TREMOVE model

As all models TREMOVE has some limitations, either due to data or to the way the model is set up.

Data

The volumes in the reference scenario are exogenously. They are determined outside TREMOVE (based on TRANS_TOOLS model runs in iTREN). Hence it is not possible to consistently change some of the main assumptions made in this reference scenario – for example a higher increase in fuel prices.

TREMOVE makes mostly use of European wide statistical sources: EUROSTAT, UIC,... . Thus it might deviate from more recent or more detailed data that is available at national level. It is possible to include national data, however this is very time consuming and will make renewed calibration necessary. Vehicle stock data has been updated in 2009, but still only includes data up to 2008 for some parameters and 2005 for most

Model

The TREMOVE model is a partial equilibrium model and hence only focuses on the transport market. The effect of policies on other markets is not directly taken into account.

TREMOVE only has one user type, it does not differentiate according to income, etc. Hence an equity analysis of policies is not possible.

Transaction costs of switching to another mode (in response to a policy) are not included explicitly (but are implicitly in the elasticities of substitution and the consumer surplus calculation) .

Given that it uses constant substitution elasticities, the model is in principle only valid for moderate changes in demand & prices

The model cannot be used for analysing short term effects of policies (1st 5 years) - as it is made to predict mid to long term effects of policies.

328

ANNEX 16: Real life distributions

The tables below show the real life average speed and standard deviation which were used to

calculate the stylised average speed and standard deviation in the calculations.

Table A- 15: Average speed and standard deviation on motorways for HGV

Table A- 16: Average speed and standard deviation on dual carriageways for HGV

Table A- 17: Average speed and standard deviation on single carriageways for HGV

Table A- 18: Average speed and standard deviation on urban roads for HGV

Country UK UK UK UK UK Belgium Ireland Ireland Finland France France

Motorway Rigid- 2 axle Rigid 3 axles Rigid 4 axles

Articulated -

4 axles

Articulated -

5 axles all HGV Rigid Articulated N2/N3 all HGV all hgv

average speed 98 86 86 86 86 89 86 85 86 97 86

STANDARD DEVIATION 16 6 6 6 4 4 0 6 10.4 6.5 6.3

speed limit n/a 96 96 96 96 90 80 80

120

summer/10

0 winter 130 110

Year 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012

Country UK UK UK UK UK France Finland

dual carriage way Rigid- 2 axle Rigid 3 axles Rigid 4 axles

Articulated -

4 axles

Articulated -

5 axles HGV N2/N3

average speed 94 85 85 85 85 82 84.5

STANDARD DEVIATION 11 9 8 9 6 7.69 9.3

speed limit n/a 80 80 80 80 110 100

Year 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011

Country UK UK UK UK UK France

single carriage way Rigid- 2 axle Rigid 3 axles Rigid 4 axles

Articulated -

4 axles

Articulated -

5 axles HGV

average speed 74 67 69 69 70 76

STANDARD DEVIATION 12 14 14 14 12 9.59

speed limit n/a 64 64 64 64 90

Year 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011

Country UK UK UK UK UK France

urban roads Rigid- 2 axle Rigid 3 axles Rigid 4 axles

Articulated -

4 axles

Articulated -

5 axles HGV

average speed 48 46 48 48 48 49

STANDARD DEVIATION 10 11 11 12 10 11.04

speed limit 48 48 48 48 48 50

329

Table A- 19: Average speed and standard deviation for buses in the UK and Finland

Table A- 20: Average speed and standard deviation on motorways for cars

Table A- 21: Average speed and standard deviation on dual carriage ways for cars

Table A- 22: Average speed and standard deviation on single carriage ways for cars

Table A- 23: Average speed and standard deviation on urban roads for cars

Motorways Dual carriageways single carriageways urban roads Motorways Dual carriageways

2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012

average speed 99 96 72 43.2 92.7 96.3

STANDARD DEVIATION 13.95 13.94 14.01 8.93 10.5 10.2

speed limit 112 96 80 48

120 (summer)/100

(winter) 100

UK Finland

Year 2011 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011

Country UK Belgium Ireland France France Finland

average speed 110 118 109 113 101 109

STANDARD DEVIATION 16 19 14 15

speed limit 112 120 120 130 110 1

Year 2011 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011

Country UK Belgium

Ireland

(NP)

Ireland

(SP) France Finland

average speed 109 71 12 82 101 97


speed limit 112 70 0 100 110 100

Year 2011 2011 2011 2011

Country UK

Ireland

(regional

road)

Ireland

(local

road) France

average speed 77 77 64 80

STANDARD DEVIATION 15 13 27

speed limit 96 80 80 90

Year 2011 2010 2011 2011 2011

Country UK Belgium Ireland France Austria

average speed 48 54 61 51 51


speed limit 48 50 50 53 50

330

Table A- 24: Average speed and standard deviation for LDV in the UK, 2011

motorway dual carriageways single carriageways urban roads

average speed 112.0 108.8 76.8 48.0

STANDARD DEVIATION 113.0 15.2 15.5 10.2

speed limit 114.0 112.0 96.0 48.0

Documents

Final report - European Commission...entered the EU at 1 July 2013) HCV Heavy Commercial Vehicles covering HGVs and buses as laid down in the Speed Limitation Directive. Refers to